June 21, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.3 to 2.13, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   SoHo, Hamilton Road and Lambeth Community Improvement Plans: Performance Measures and Indicators of Success

2021-06-21 SR Community Improvement Plans Performance Measures and Indicators of Success

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services & Support, the following actions be taken with respect to amending Community Improvement Plans to add performance measures and indicators of success:

a) the staff report dated June 21, 2021 entitled “SoHo, Hamilton Road and Lambeth Community Improvement Plans - Performance Measures and Indicators of Success”, with respect to potential changes to the Lambeth, SoHo, and the Hamilton Road CIPs’ financial incentives programs. These programs are the Tax Grant (SoHo), Façade Improvement Loan (Lambeth, Hamilton Road, and SoHo), the Upgrade to Building Code Loan (Hamilton Road and SoHo), and the Forgivable Loans to Upgrade to Building Code and Façade Improvement Loans (Hamilton Road) for BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the staff report noted in a) above, for public review;

it being noted that input received through the circulation of the report will assist in informing a recommendation on changes to the grant and loan programs that will be presented at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

2.4   Draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (O-9299)

2021-06-21 SR Draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan O-9299 - FULL REPORT

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan (CIP):

a) the draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021, BE RECEIVED:

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the draft Argyle Core Area Community Improvement Plan, noted in a) above, to receive public input from the Argyle Business Improvement Area, Argyle Community Association, the London Small Business Centre, the Urban League of London, all City Advisory Committees and stakeholders who have participated in the process to date and post the draft Plan on the City’s Get Involved webpage; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with any recommended revisions to the draft Plan resulting from the public input received, to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration.   (2021-D19)

Motion Passed

2.5   Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas (OZ-9332)

2021-06-21 SR Encouraging Growing Food in Urban Areas -OZ-9332 - FULL REPORT

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the background report, including draft proposed London Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to implement directions contained in the Council-approved Urban Agriculture Strategy appended to the staff report dated June 21 2021, BE CIRCULATED for public review and comment in advance of a public participation meeting to be scheduled at a later date. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.6   Summerside Subdivision Phase 17 - Subdivision Special Provisions

2021-06-21 SR Summerside Subdivision Phase 17 39T-92020_17

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc., for the subdivision of land over Concession 1, Part of Lots 15 and 16, situated east of Highbury Avenue North, southwest of Meadowgate Boulevard and north of Bradley Avenue:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the Summerside Subdivision, Phase 17 (39T-92020_17) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 as 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

2.7   751 Fanshawe Park Road West - Vista Woods Subdivision Phase 3 - Special Provisions

2021-06-21 SR Vista Wood Subdivision - Special Provisions - 39T-03505-3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vista Wood Estates Ltd. for the subdivision relating to a portion of the property located on the southwest corner of Wonderland Road North and Sunningdale Road West (formerly 751 Fanshawe Park Road West):

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Vista Wood Estates Ltd. for the Vista Wood Subdivision, Phase 3 (39T-03505_3) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 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 June 21, 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 fulfil its conditions. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed

2.8   600 Sunningdale Road West - Sunningdale Court Subdivision Phase 1 - Special Provisions - 39T-18501

2021-06-21 SR Sunningdale Court Special Provisions 39T-18501-1

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the subdivision of land legally described as RCP 1028 PT Lot 16 RP 33R13891, PT Part 1 RP 33R16774 Parts 3 to 10 IRREG), municipally known as 600 Sunningdale Road West, located on the south side Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Richmond Street:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd. for the Sunningdale Court Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-18501_1) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 as Appendix “C”, noting the Capital Budget adjustments; 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

2.9   355 Marconi Boulevard - Marconi Court Subdivision - Special Provisions - 39T-20501

2021-06-21 SR 355 Marconi Boulevard 39T-20501

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and JNF Group Inc., for the subdivision municipally known as 355 Marconi Boulevard:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and JNF Group Inc. for the Marconi Subdivision, (39T-20501) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 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

2.10   Parker Jackson Subdivision - 39T-06507

2021-06-21 SR Parker Jackson 39T-06507-1

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the subdivision relating to the lands located on the east side of Jackson Road between Commissioners Road East and Bradley Avenue, municipally known as 1635 Commissioners Road East and 2624 Jackson Road:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the Parker Jackson Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-06507_1) appended to the staff report dated June 21, 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 June 21, 2021 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 June 21, 2021 Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.11   1620 Noah Bend

2021-06-21 SR 1620 Noah Bend - P-9338

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to exempt Block 95, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.12   135 Villagewalk Boulevard (H-9050)

2021-06-21 SR 135 Villagewalk Blvd - H-9050

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2560334 Ontario Ltd. (York Developments), relating to a portion of the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (hh-99BDC(25)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(25)) Zone to remove the “h and h-99” holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.13   Building Division Monthly Report for April, 2021

2021-06-21 SR Building Divsion Monthly Report - April

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

2.1   ReThink Zoning

2021-06-21 SR ReThink-Zoning - FULL REPORT - REDACTED VERSION

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated June 21, 2021 entitled “ReThink Zoning - Update Report and Background Papers”, BE RECEIVED for information. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   Memorandum of Understanding for Development and/or Planning Act Application Review Between the City of London and UTRCA

2021-06-21 SR UTRCA and CoL MOU

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to updating the Development Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames Conservation Authority with respect to plan review services:

a) the proposed updated Development Memorandum of Understanding (DMOU) between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE APPROVED substantially in the form appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A”;

b) subject to the approval of a) above, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary to finalize the DMOU noted in a) above, including, potential revisions resulting from discussions between the two parties that relate to improved level of service that reduces duplication of actions and incorporates the pillars of continuous improvement; and,

c) subject to the approval of a) and b) above, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DELEGATED the authority to execute the final DMOU noted in a) above, and make any further revisions that may be necessary to reflect legislative and/or regulation changes and amendments in response to Municipal Council’s direction on planning related matters, or to recognize resource constraints.   (2021-E20)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the staff report dated June 21, 2021 entitled “Memorandum of Understanding for Development and/or Planning Act Application Review between The Corporation of the City of London and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority” BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to obtain comments from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority with respect to this matter and to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, with the results of the consultation.

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   915 - 919 Commissioners Road East (Z-9334)

2021-06-21 SR 915-919 Commissioners Road East - Z-9334

2021-06-21 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2781033 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 915-919 Commissioners Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity to the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Office/Highway Service Commercial (RO2/HS) Zone TO a Restricted Office Special Provision/Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (RO2()/HS()) Zone;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment to Zoning B-law Z.-1 conforms to the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor policies of the 1989 Official Plan;

  • the recommended amendment to Zoning B-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Commercial Industrial Place Type of The London Plan;

  • the use of an existing developed site supports Council’s commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change by making efficient use of existing infrastructure and by focusing intensification and growth in already-developed areas;

  • the subject lands are an appropriate location for a small-scale retail use and a reduction in required parking. The recommended amendments are consistent with and appropriate for the site and context and will support opportunities for economic activity and employment. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   193 Queens Avenue (Z-9327)

2021-06-21 SR 193 Queens Avenue TZ-9327

2021-06-21 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of Farhi Holdings Corporation, relating to the property located at 193 Queens Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan for the City of London (1989)), to change the zoning of the subject property from a Holding Downtown Area (h-3DA1D350) Zone and a Holding Downtown Area (h-3DA2D350) Zone TO a Holding Downtown Area/Temporary (h-3DA1D350/T-) Zone and a Holding Downtown Area/Temporary (h-3DA2D350/T-) Zone;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS, 2020 as it ensures that sufficient parking is provided in the Downtown, promoting economic development by supporting existing economic activities and businesses that currently rely on this parking supply for workers;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, the Temporary Use By-law Policies;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is appropriate to help maintain an adequate supply of parking to service businesses in the Downtown pending the gradual transition away from the use of surface commercial parking lots as transit ridership increases and as alternative parking spaces are provided;

  • the recommended amendment supports the intent of the Downtown Parking Strategy; and,

  • the parking lot has existed for several years and has achieved a measure of compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   1830 Adelaide Street North (1810, 1820, 1840 and 1850 Adelaide Street North) (Z-9312)

2021-06-21 SR 1830 Adelaide Street North - Z-9312

2021-06-21 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Stoney Creek Commercial Centre c/o York Developments, relating to the property located at 1810, 1820, 1840 and 1850 Adelaide Street North, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated June 21, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 6, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Shopping Area (NSA1/NSA2/NSA5) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA1/NSA2/NSA4(_)/NSA5) Zone;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas by accommodating employment to meet long-term needs. The amendment also supports long-term economic prosperity by promoting economic development that takes into account the needs of existing and future businesses;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force polices of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhood Commercial Node designation;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Shopping Area Place Type; and,

  • the recommendation amendment implements an appropriate intensity for the site which is compatible with the surrounding area and facilitates the viability of the commercial area for current and future uses. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   1146-1156 Byron Baseline Road (SPA21-009)

2021-06-21 SR 1146-1156 Byron Baseline Rd - SPA21-009

2021-06-21 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 21816121 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 1146-1156 Byron Baseline Road:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that issues were raised relating to the development agreement at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development; and,

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Council expressed concerns with respect to the Site Plan Application relating to the following:

  • the proximity of the proposed three storey building to the neighbouring properties;

  • potential lighting impacts on neighbouring properties;

  • privacy; and,

  • parking concerns;

c) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

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 Site Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it provides for development within an existing settlement area and provides for an appropriate range of residential uses within the neighbourhood;

  • the proposed Site Plan conforms to the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  • the proposed Site Plan conforms to the policies of the Low Density Residential designation of the 1989 Official Plan;

  • the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law; and,

  • the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law. (2021-D11)

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. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   183 and 197 Ann Street - A-M. Valastro - REQUEST FOR DELEGATION STATUS

2021-06-21 PS 183 and 197 Ann Street - AM Valastro 1 of 6

2021-06-21 PS 183 and 197 Ann Street - AM Valastro 2 of 6

2021-06-21 PS 183 and 197 Ann Street - AM Valastro 3 of 6.docx

2021-06-21 PS 183 and 197 Ann Street - AM Valastro 4 of 6

2021-06-21 PS 183 and 197 Ann Street - AM Valastro 5 of 6

2021-06-21 PS 183 and 197 Ann Street - AM Valastro 6 of 6

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the request for delegation status with respect to the heritage and planning applications relating to the properties located at 183 and 197 Anne Street BE REFERRED to the public participation meeting to be held at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee regarding these matters;

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

  • a request for delegation status from A-M. Valastro;

  • the evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for the property located at 183 Ann Street;

  • the evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for the property located at 179 Ann Street; and,

  • a request for delegation status dated June 17, 2021, from A Soufan, York Developments. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

4.2   5th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-06-02 ACE Report

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on June 2, 2021:

a)  clause 2.1 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that clause 2.1 reads as follows:

“That the City of London Municipal Council BE ASKED to request that the Government of Ontario place an interim cap of 2.5 megatonnes per year on the greenhouse gas pollution from Ontario’s gas-fire power plants and develop and implement a plan to phase-out all gas-fired electricity generation by 2030 to help Ontario and the City of London meet their climate targets; it being noted that 28 other municipalities have previously made this request of the provincial government; it being further noted that the presentation, as appended to the Agenda and a verbal delegation from J. Gibbons, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, with respect to Ontario’s Growing Climate Crisis, were received.”; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.1 and 4.2, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.3   6th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-06-09 LACH Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the London Adviosry Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on June 9, 2021:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Arva Pumping Station to the Notice of Study Commencement and Resident Townhall, dated June 5, 2021, from S. Romano, City of London and J. Haasen, AECOM Canada Ltd., the Final Report, dated April 2021, from AECOM Canada Ltd., the Cultural Heritage Report, dated May 2021, from AECOM Canada Ltd. and the presentation, dated June 9, 2021, from T. Jenkins, AECOM Canada Ltd., related to the Huron Street Transmission Main Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan:

i)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on the Heritage supports the cultural heritage mitigation measures presented in the above-noted documents; and,

ii)     the above-noted documents and the verbal presentation from T. Jenkins, AECOM Canada Ltd., BE RECEIVED;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated May 19, 2021, from I. de Ceuster, Planner I, with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment, related to the property located at 496 Dundas Street and the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated December 15, 2020, from MHBC with respect to the property located at 496 Dundas Street:

i) I. de Ceuster, Planner I, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage is satisfied with the research, assessment and conclusion of the above-noted Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the property located at 496 Dundas Street and supports the mitigation and conservation recommendations within the HIA; and,

ii) the above-noted documents BE RECEIVED;

c)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Public Meeting Notice, dated May 12, 2021, from B. Debbert, Senior Planner, with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment related to the properties located at 1634-1656 Hyde Park Road and other properties:

i)     B. Debbert, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage believes that this project is a good example of heritage conservation as part of a development application; and,

ii)     the above-noted Public Meeting Notice, BE RECEIVED;

d)  on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, 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 and front door on the heritage designated property located at 827 Elias Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

e)  on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval and retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated property located at 330 St James Street, in the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

  • the porch skirt be painted to minimize the plastic and faux wood appearance of the material;

  • the property owner be encouraged to plant and maintain vegetation, such as coniferous shrubs, to minimize the visibility of the porch skirt; 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, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking approval to alter the heritage designated property located at 2096 Wonderland Road North BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

  • prior to any alteration or construction, full documentation of the building including photo-documentation and a set of as-built drawings be provided to the City;

  • prior to any alteration or construction, Heritage Planning Staff be consulted and the following details be provided:

o double hung vinyl replacement windows with simulated divided lites to be installed throughout, and replicate current muntin patterning;

o vinyl replacement entry door surround with simulated divided lites to be installed, and replicate current surround details and muntin patterning; and,

o proposed fieldstone finish for the exterior surface of exposed new concrete foundation walls and on the new concrete entry porch and steps;

  • prior to building permit approval, an addendum to the Conservation Plan be submitted, to the satisfaction of the City, which includes:

o a monitoring program; and,

o a detailed strategy to conserve the chimneys;

  • direction be given to the Site Plan Approval Authority that the following clauses be added to the Development Agreement (DA) for Site Plan Approval (SPA20-022):

o during pre-construction, construction, and post-construction activity, the assessment, stabilization, bracing, and monitoring of the building must be consistent with the Conservation Plan prepared by a+LiNK Architecture Inc. (dated March 26, 2021);

o if the building or any of the identified heritage attributes are accidentally damaged during the raising and final setting onto the new foundation, or during ongoing construction of the surrounding townhouse development, construction will cease immediately, and the City will be notified; qualified experts will be contacted to conduct an assessment of the damage and determine an appropriate course of action; damaged heritage attributes will be assessed to determine if repairs can be made; if repairs are possible, the applicant will retain, at their cost, the appropriate professionals to conduct repairs; if repairs to damaged heritage attributes are not possible, the applicant will replace the heritage attribute in kind, at their cost, based on information contained in the as-built drawings and photographs; if irreparable damage is done to the building or heritage attributes, such that none can be salvaged, the applicant will reconstruct the building with sympathetic materials; this shall include using salvaged buff bricks or appropriate new materials from other sources and reconstructing heritage attributes identified in the designating by-law; reconstruction will be based on the as-built drawings and photographs of the building and heritage attributes; should this situation occur, reconstruction plans will be prepared for the City’s review and approval; and,

o the applicant will provide the City with a security in the form of an irrevocable Letter of Credit, in order to secure the applicant’s obligations related to the heritage alteration permit (HAP21-031-L); the amount of the Letter of Credit is the full estimated cost for raising and holding the building, demolition of the existing foundation and construction of the new foundation; the Letter of Credit will be released when the applicant has completed the work outlined in the heritage alteration permit to the satisfaction of the City; and,

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

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) appreciates the efforts of the developer and the City of London staff to come to a solution for this project and the LACH supports the reuse of materials of the existing property in the new development; and,

g)   clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.7, inclusive, 3.9, 4.1 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2021-06-17 EEPAC Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 17, 2021:

a)  the following recommendations of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, with respect to the Advisory Committee Review and draft Terms of Reference Report dated May 17, 2021, BE PROVIDED to the Governance Working Group for consideration:

i) the reduction in membership to 19 is supported;

ii) quorum as a requirement for committee business be maintained;

iii) the existing Terms of Reference be maintained with one alteration highlighted below:

Add to the existing mandate:

“to provide advice on any global (e.g climate change), regional or local issue related to the long-term sustainability of the Natural Heritage System.”;

) the existing name be maintained;

e) as the technical expertise needed is sometimes hard to obtain, term limits may not be suitable; this could be addressed by one or more of the following:

i) no term limits;

ii) three council cycles (12 year limit); and,

iii) current limit be continued but extensions be permitted on the advice of the Chair

f) given the specialized knowledge required for membership:

i) the City be asked to circulate application information to the relevant Department Chairs at Western University and Course Coordinators at Fanshawe. The Chair and Vice Chair can provide assistance in identifying the appropriate contacts; and,

ii) the information circulated include a contact name from EEPAC so that potential applicants can ask questions about membership prior to applying;

g) in the selection process, consideration be given to asking the current Chair and Vice Chair for assistance

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

c)  a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of A. Boyer, S. Hall, B. Krichker, K. Moser, B. Samuels and I. Whiteside, with respect to the Climate Emergency Action Plan; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee reviewed and received the Discussion Primer for the Climate Emergency Action Plan - 2020; and,

d)  clauses 1.1, 2.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:14 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 13 minutes)

Councillor Layman, comments please, on any agenda items, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have two items that I’d like to comment on.

I’ll start with the more direct one, which is 2.9 355, Mark Coney Boulevard, the Mark Coney Court subdivision. It’s nice to see Enville happening in ward two. This is a piece of land that is now going to create some residential homes in the area, but through you to our staff, I wanted to ask the one question that the neighbourhood has had was around creating a pedestrian walkway access between this court and Clark Road. And so I wonder if staff could just comment briefly if any discussions or options were looked at there.

I know it’s not in the plans, so I just want to make sure that it was looked into. Thank you, staff, someone to answer that? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It’s Bruce Page managed for subdivisions. Yes, we did look into it through the subdivision process and through parks planning. There was a couple of factors that came into play that were a little bit challenging. One was the intervening land, the Mark Coney land.

It would have been separate if we provided that access through there. If we moved the access to the south, it would have made for a unsafe situation. So from a septide perspective, we are looking for straight linear lines. This would have had to have a bit of a pendant to it, so it wouldn’t have been a safe location for an access.

And then the third we’d have to provide lighting and was street to street lighting. So we did look into it quite a bit. The property to the south is the view hall. So it didn’t create for an ideal or enjoyable connection there either.

Councillor, go ahead. Okay, thank you for that. I just wanted to ensure that it was looked into and certainly when we’ve got situations where it’s going to create an unsafe access point, then that’s not desirable either. So I appreciate staff doing their best there.

And the good news is ultimately at the end of the day, we’re getting more residential units in the neighborhood, so that’s great. The other item that I wanted to just comment briefly on was 2.4, that’s the draft Argyle core area community improvement plan. There has been lots of input from my ward into the development of this CIP. I want to particularly take an opportunity to thank Isaac DeCuster from our staff who’s put in countless hours, not just with myself, but with the BIA, the community association and other stakeholders in the neighborhood.

Really excited to see this coming forward. Long before I arrived in these chambers, I played a small role in the formation of what was then just the business association, providing some backroom board meeting space at the MP’s office for some business owners to meet. And I remember multiple times a discussion being had about a community improvement plan for the Dundas corridor. And we were told over and over again, it’ll never happen, it’ll never happen.

Well, here it is. And this is the draft for circulation, so we’ll get a little more public input on this before we finalize it and bring it back. But I’m really excited that this is finally happening. It’s really good news for the Argyle area.

And I just really appreciate all the work that planning staff has put into helping pull this together. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Hill here now. Thank you very much.

I’m just excited about 2.6, and I’d like to thank Mr. Mottroom and Mr. Barrett for the wonderful work that I’ve done putting through these special provisions for the summer side subdivision. When I look out my back door, I can actually see the tractors at seven o’clock in the morning every day.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor, brief as always. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair. I do have a couple of comments just following up with Councillor Hilly’s comments about subdivision. So I wanna thank staff for all the work that’s going on with a number of consent items, all dealing with subdivisions. And I counted over 700 single family units and over 10 family units as well.

So we’re in the hundreds here, if not thousands, of subdivisions going forward and much needed housing in our city. So thank you to staff for all the hard work. I would like to make a quick comment on 2.5, which is encouraging the growing of food in urban areas. I know we’re going out for review and public participation, but following the pandemic and the, if anything, the need for our food in an urban setting has really become great interest in the community.

So I’m looking forward to that public consultation with eventually changes to the London plan. So with that, I just wanted to also make a comment. I’m getting into taking care of bees as well. It is a conversation that we’re starting to have a broader understanding about a food source and the sustainability of our land in the urban setting.

So I’m really excited to learning more and seeing the public come forward with their interest in this as well. So thank you. Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to ask a question regarding 2.7, the Vista Woods subdivision on Fanshawe Park Road West. Oh, come my eye was in the special provisions number 26, the owner shall construct noise walls along Wonderland Road as per the accepted engineered drawings, all to the specifications of the city at no cost of the city. Through you, Chair, to staff, the specifications of the city specify the type of materials that are to be used in the noise walls. Staff, go ahead.

Thank you, through the Chair, it’s Matt Felberg speaking. Yes, we would identify the materials and you’d work through that on the engineering drawings. Go ahead, Councillor. Can I ask what materials they are?

Go ahead. Thank you, and through the Chair, my assumption at this point without having the drawings in front of me is that they’d be a concrete noise wall of some kind, probably a panel, a pre-port panel that is mounted and put up along the edge of the road. Okay, thank you. I’m glad to hear that because in my ward along Oxford Street, most of the noise walls there are of similar construction.

However, there’s a number of sections that were wood and 20 plus years later, that wood is starting to move with the earth and get shabby and maintenance is required and homeowners are under the assumption that it’s city responsibility and city-owned walls. So I’m glad to hear that there’s something more permanent along the lines of what else I’ve seen along Fanshawe. Anyway, I think that’s something that we should just be aware of because 20 years later, it’ll be a problem that comes home diverse. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Any other comments on any of the items? All right, oh, sorry. Councillor Vanholz, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll just follow up with Councillor Hoffman’s comments about the urban food strategy. I think it’s great, we’re looking at that.

There’s a lot more attention being placed on food security and even some of the LCRN funding is going to look into that, an important thing. And I believe that the Councillor also pulled 2.3, would you just confirm that for me? No. No, okay, two, okay, so I had a comment.

Go ahead and make your comments, sir. Okay, thank you very much. So with regard to the facade improvements, the limit that Staffing is looking at is 90% of the buildings are look fine. Then that’s when the program would be removed.

I think that’s a little too low. I think I would prefer that be a 95%, one in 10 buildings looking a little shoddy is not what we want to see on, certainly on the gateway that’s Hamilton Road. So we’re attempting to fix those things up. I would like to have that program in place until we’re happy with how things look, not just reaching some arbitrary number.

So that would be my comment on there. And perhaps through you, maybe Staff has… Well, let’s staff comment on that, Councillor. Go ahead, Staff, if you’d like to comment on that.

Through the chair, thank you. Thank you for your comment. So we’ll be picking into consideration. At this moment, we are looking for feedback on the recommended targets and measures.

And also the measure of 90% wasn’t too, after 90% of the buildings look good by our measure, it would only be a recommended possible scale back of the program and not a full removal. Thank you. Okay, I’m sorry. I guess I’m perhaps I misread that.

I thought at 70%, it was a scale back. And at 90%, it was the removal. But the other thing I think I would like to see is certainly in Hamilton Road, there is that there’s a limit or restrictions on what can be used for a facade improvement. And what I’ve found is that using stucco-like treatments, I don’t know if it’s stucco, but that kind of treatment, we’ve said we would not support.

However, that’s what the beer store has. It’s what a number of the buildings already had. And because of cost, that seems to be the ones that are going in anyway. And so I think that’s something I would like to see supported in the future.

Perhaps I’ll come with some kind of emotion for that. But I am pleased that we are seeing some changes and some upgrades to this gateway. And I appreciate that this program is in place. And it’s certainly appreciated by those who are taking advantage of it.

One, the most recent one is an old building that’s being redone and made into a little grocery store, which also solves the problem of this area being somewhat of a food desert. And I don’t think without these incentive programs, we would have been able to refurbish that building because it had been damaged so much by people tearing out copper and plumbing and things like that. So these are great things. And I hope we keep them in place until we see the kind of results that we’re thrilled with.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. So if there’s no other comments, I’m gonna call all the items except 2.1 and 2.2 for vote. Close and devote the motion carries by.

I decided to be pulling things zoning, Councillor Hopkins. I think you wanted that matter, Paul. Yes, I am wondering if there is a very short presentation from staff to give us an update on the re-think zoning process. I think that’s correct, staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good evening committee. This is on your eyes.

So this is an update report for re-think zoning, which is the project to create the city’s new comprehensive zoning by-law that will eventually replace our existing zoning by-laws at one. This is a very large project which will span many years and will create one of the most important implementation tools in achieving the vision and direction of the London plan. It continues the conversation with Londoners about how they want to see their city grow. This first began with the preparation of the London plan through the re-think London engagement process.

And re-think zoning shifts the question from what type of city do we wanna see to how do we get there? Over the past year, background work and research has been undertaken to explore and evaluate the available tools and techniques for zoning, the various regulations that may be used, and also the best practices that could be learned from other municipalities. From the work that has been completed, a series of five background papers have been prepared. These papers capture the research and details collected and are based on a variety of subjects, such as what is re-think zoning, zoning for use, intensity, and form, and also an in-depth look at the Ontario Municipal Case Studies.

The purpose of the background papers is not only to summarize the work that has been completed so far, but also to provide something tangible for the public and stakeholders to review, consider, and comment on. The papers will form part of the foundation of the project as it moves forward and are posted on the project website and publicly accessible at this time. In terms of next steps for the overall project, the city is currently in the process of selecting a consultant for the next stage. Once a consultant is retained, there will be more detailed work going forward to develop the actual by-law, as well as more community consultation and engagement opportunities to actively seek feedback and input.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there are any questions myself, Mr. Ademar and Mr.

Barrett would be happy to take them. Thank you very much. I think if one of your policy papers was zoning for dummies, I think that would be something that I would certainly be able to use, but it sounds like a good project moving forward, and I’ll look for any questions. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick thank you. I think this is quite interesting, especially a planning committee when we have to deal with a number of zoning issues.

And I am looking forward to the opportunity to be part of this conversation. And here, what Londoners think as well, we started the London plan and rethink with that community engagement. And now we’re moving forward with these zoning by-laws. I know there’s a number of zoning issues.

We deal with them here at planning all the time when it comes to height, intensification, setbacks, block coverage. And in particular, in my ward, infill and intensification is always a big conversation. So I’m really interested to see how we’re going to move forward. Glad to hear what we’ve got in the consultants in place.

And looking to see how the community will continue their engagement. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor, Councillor Hillier. Thank you, yes.

As I’m going through the rethinking zoning, I’m quite excited to see that we’ll be rethinking our buffer areas around our ESAs. We’ll be doing parking review for business. Coming out of COVID, we are going to need to help everything. The parking review is gonna be a big thing along Wellington and also along a hybrid, sorry, Hamilton Road for Michael.

This is gonna be an issue getting businesses off the ground again. So I’m looking forward to see what the public comes up with and what staff move back with. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor.

Any further comments? There being none, I just need a mover and seconder for this. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Anything further?

Let’s call the vote. Councillor Hopkins, closing the vote. Motion carries five to zero. And the next item is item 2.2, moving the city of London and UTRCA, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have asked for this to be pulled. I do have a number of questions.

As you know, committee members, I do sit on the Upper Thames Conservation Authority Board and I am wanting to know a little bit more. I wanna thank staff for meeting with me, giving me an update. I have not had an opportunity to get an update from Upper Thames as this sort of came to us in the agenda. And I’d like to follow up with maybe a couple comments and a number of questions if I may, Mr.

Chair. So I think it’s fair to say that we all wanna be efficient and we want to, you know, not duplicate and create opportunities to move our applications forward in an efficient way. I think no matter who you are, be it staff or Upper Thames or the community, we all wanna see that. And this is the beginning of that.

And with the recommendation coming to us, I have a number of questions as it relates to A. If I can start with A, this is a draft plan and I know we are being asked to approve it substantially. And I’m not exactly sure what that means. So if I can start off with that question, so I can have a better understanding how we move forward with the draft MOU, that’s in front of us.

Okay, so the question is what is the effect of us approving the memorandum of understanding in its form today? Certainly, it’s substantially and just having a better understanding what that means. Right, go ahead, staff. And through you, Mr.

Chair, it’s not Barbara speaking. So really the purpose of the language is to highlight that there’s still a few edges to round out on this. In a conversation we had with the CA GM last week, they identified a couple of things that they wanted to dig a little deeper on with their teams and their legal department, but they didn’t highlight any major objections to what’s in front of you. Key takeaway, which we also highlighted to the CA staff, is that the CA still maintains its delegated authority for planning matters under the CA Act, but where we have matters of natural heritage, stormwater management or hydrogeology that aren’t related to hazards, the city would take the lead on those reviews.

Essentially the goal of the DMOU or the development MOU that’s in this report is to provide clear direction to staff on who comments and when in an effort to reduce duplication between the two areas. If through those conversations with the CA as we’re moving forward, we establish that there’s a significant deviation to what’s in front of you today. We would be bringing it back to council for a further approval. Thank you, council.

Yeah, thank you for that. It is, for me, it’s something I need to understand wearing my councilor hat as well as upper tems being a member of the board. And we know we all CAs are going to be going into new MOU agreements and we’re still waiting for the provincial government to get a better idea what these regulations look like. And I do think we have to understand what we’re doing here as we approve these MOUs going forward.

So following up on what Mr. Felberg said with the new changes that are being introduced here and this is a draft. If I can have a better idea how this is going to speed up the process, this new DMOU. Okay, go ahead.

If you, this has to do with speed of approval that will be obtained by this. Certainly to you, Mr. Chair. So essentially with each application, we have both the upper tems and the city reviewing matters of natural heritage, stormwater and hydrogeology.

Since 1997, when the original MOU is, or the one that we’ve been working off was approved, we’ve added a significant number of ecological staff and then in addition to hydrogeologists to our resources here at the city. In addition, we have a very robust stormwater engineering group that takes on all matters as they relate to stormwater infrastructure which includes also incorporating to the DC background study as well as our multi-year budget and improving the infrastructure around the city. So the goal here is to allow the upper tems to focus on the things that are part of their core mandate, which would be flood protection and educational awareness and allow our staff to undertake those reviews as they relate to the things under a planning act application within the city boundaries. Thank you, Councilor.

Yeah, thank you for that. I appreciate getting that information. I know we have a number of processes that it takes to review. So it’s the reviewing going to still be the same, but it will be just done by the city of London.

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

Yes, that would be the intention, except for those matters that are delegated by the province. So the typical of the hazard work that they typically do. Thank you for that. And again, I know we’re still waiting for those regulations to have a better understanding where CA’s fit into what’s mandatory and what’s not mandatory.

So to me, there’s a lot of things still up in the air that we really don’t have and understanding. I know there is a number of other concerns that I have and it’s mainly the fact that I have no idea what Upper Thames thinks of this. And I do think it is important when you enter into contracts, you have two parties and I would like to have a better understanding where Upper Thames Conservation Authority thinks it may work or it may not work. And I think those things are really important for us as a committee to understand this contract that we’re substantially approving tonight.

So if I’m happy to hear from other committee members, but I would like an opportunity to hear what Upper Thames has to say and if more work needs to be done, I would like to find out from them how, what their comments are and how they think it’s possible or doable or not. It’s important for me to do that. This is a draft and I know that we’re going to be approving something substantially here tonight and I still am not quite sure. Well, perhaps we can ask Mr.

Felberg then. Is this a draft that has not yet been approved by the Upper Thames and others we haven’t had their input on this so that this is an offer that we’re making that they’ll either agree with or disagree with and if they disagree, it’ll come back to us to deal with those points of disagreement. Is that how things are going? That’s a set correct, Mr.

Chair. That’s basically where we’re at today. This is a draft MOU. The next step for the Conservation Authority would be to look at it internally with their folks or their legal department and their various teams and then they would take it to their board for a similar approval as we are today with the planning committee.

After that, we would work with them on a transition plan and then execute the MOU assuming that we could come to some agreement. Right, I think that answers that point then. Yeah, that makes it, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Yeah, go ahead. - So there’s still a lot of work to be done. I know I have brought it to the attention of staff. There are some numbering of clauses in Appendix A.

There’s Section 4C. I’m not exactly sure if we’re missing certain paragraphs or if the numbering is out of sequence but I would like to ask the committee if they could support just the referral of it going back with further work to be done with the CA. So we have a better clear understanding on exactly what this contract is going to look like when it comes back to committee. Yeah, I just want to make it clear.

I think Mr. Felberg said that this is going to the Conservation Authority. They’re going to look at it and if they want to make changes, that’ll be up to them to make changes. In other words, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

It’s not a final agreement until the Conservation Authority says, “Yeah, we agree to this or we don’t.” I know that I have a request here, Mr. Chair. Okay, I don’t want to get my answer. I don’t want to get on the board.

Eventually, I’ll probably get to hear what Upper Thames has to say. But right now, as I approve this MOU, I have no idea what is going on and if it can even happen in terms of are they going to be satisfied? Is this, I hear from city staff, how they would like to move forward. But this is a contract between two parties and before I substantially approve something, I would like to have a better understanding of that contract.

This is a draft, having it come back with a better discussion to the committee and eventually to council. I think it is important that we understand— Okay, Councillor, you made your point. I’m not trying to get in the way of you making a motion. I was just trying to be helpful in explaining what Mr.

Felberg has said. I’m not trying to, so you’ll have a chance to make your motion. Let’s hear from other committee members. Any other comments on this, Councillor Lehman?

With all due respect, I think we, you know, our other roles of the city, we wear different hats and when we come to council, we wear the city of London Councillor’s hat. Our staff has gone down this road with an MOU, with Upper Thames and from what I’m hearing as this is where they want to go, I can’t get into the minds of the Upper Thames. That’s for them to respond with our staff as they work through this draft. So I’m satisfied where this stands from my position as a Councillor for the city of London and I’ll let Upper Thames deal with this draft at the appropriate time for their point of view.

Any other comments, questions, Councillor Lewis? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to be clear through you to staff.

Referring this back is actually in, from what I’ve heard, would not do anything. It would actually stall it because the process, if I’m understanding correctly, and this is what I’m looking for clarity on, if I’m understanding correctly, the process now is this draft goes to Upper Thames. Upper Thames can then review it. They can suggest changes, they can object to portions and that is where they enter into negotiation with staff in terms of what the MOU details are.

But if we do not forward this tonight, there’s no basis for a discussion to start back and forth. Is that fair to describe the process, Mr. Felberg? Mr.

Felberg, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is basically where we’re at today.

What I could offer is we could come back with a verbal update after the conversation has been had with the conservation authority. Well, thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, I would assume that a verbal update would, or actually perhaps even a written update, would return to council once there’s a finalized MOU in place between the two parties.

Is that correct, Mr. Felberg? Yes, that could be certainly is something we can do. Although in Clause C, we were looking for delegated authority to the DCM, but we can certainly bring back a report highlighting how the conversations went and what the final MOU was.

Thank you, Mr. Felberg. Anything further? Okay, Councillor Hopkins, would you want to make a motion?

Yeah, I would like to make a motion. I think I appreciate my colleagues’ comments. I know we have to wear a Councillor’s hat. I’m wearing my Councillor’s hat.

I’m also wearing my board of upper temps hat. And I’m also wearing my MOU hat as well, ‘cause this is a big conversation, MOUs. I know this isn’t the MOU. This is the DMOU.

So we know there are gonna be many, many more conversations that I have concerned right now, not understanding if upper temps is an agreement or not, or what even that looks like, that I am approving something here substantially. And again, if we are doing that, I think we should have a good idea what these clauses in Appendix A have a better idea on what we’re approving here tonight. And I have just received this at the end of last week. And I am not comfortable right now just approving something.

So just referring it back, I would encourage staff to continue those conversations. I don’t understand how we’re stalling things. I know we have staff that are working hard. Our ecologist, even at the moment, is on maternity leave.

So there is time, I think. It’s not gonna take that long. And maybe through you, Mr. Chair, I can ask Mr.

Feldberg, when does he see this coming back with a, you know, with further information and work that is to be done on this DMOU? Okay, so, and I just wanna clarify, because are you assuming we’re gonna refer it back and when it will come back from the referral? Because if we’re not referring it back, it may not come back. If the Upper Thames says this is fine, we’ll sign it.

So I’m not understanding what is it your, if it’s referred, I think you should be specifying, you wanna refer it for something. You haven’t done that, can I finish, please? You haven’t done that yet. So we understand your point, but we haven’t heard your referral yet.

You just said to refer it back. So maybe you can specify what you wanna refer back for. And then Mr. Feldberg can say how long that will take.

Just to get some comments from Upper Thames as we approve this DMOU. Okay, so you wanna refer back for further comments from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority before approval? Before we approve it, yes? Yes.

Yes, okay, so what the referral is, is to send it back to staff for comments from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and then it will be brought back here for further steps, I suppose, which could be approval or not approval. And how long would that take, Mr. Feldberg? Thank you, and through the chair, or to the chair, when we spoke with the Conservation Authority on Friday, they were thinking under the current process, it would be probably the end of the summer before they could get through the review, take it to their board and then get advice from their board on next steps.

So I think at this point, we’re probably looking at least two months, and then after that, if it’s a referral, and otherwise we could potentially be coming back with a verbal or an update on how the conversation went early in the fall on what’s before you today. All right, thank you. So there’s a motion on the floor for referral, is there a seconder for the motion? Question before?

Sure, go ahead. Are we under a timeline here, it says two months out, are we under a timeline that is has to be completed by? Staff? And through the chair to the council, at this point, there is no timeline for the DMOU.

Once the regulations are established, the levy MOU, which is a whole separate document and really speaks to what the city contributes to the Conservation Authority, that work would undertake in advance, I believe, of 2023. But what we need to establish through this DMOU is what the Conservation Authority’s role is in planning act applications so that it can inform that future conversation. Staff, or go ahead. Are we telling them what their role is, or are we working with them to define their role?

I’m just, well, I’m looking at this, it seems like we’re telling them, this is what you’re going to do, and they’re gonna give us their objections as an attack to us, I’m just wondering about that. How involved were they in the creation of this? Go ahead. And thank you through the chair.

So the template of the DMOU in front of you today came from Conservation Ontario, which was from the Upper Thames Conservation Authority. So they provided us the template of how to create this memorandum. We’ve been in conversation with them for quite some time on who does what. But at this point, this is kind of the city’s position on where we should be taking this based on the resources that we have here at the city, and reducing that duplication of effort.

Councilor, go ahead. Are you going to second the motion? Are you, no? Yes, I am gonna second the motion.

Thank you. The motion is seconded. So we have a motion for referral, and you’ve heard the wording of it. It’s back to staff to receive further comments from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and report back to us on that subject, those conversations for further action.

I’m gonna go to the mayor first. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry, Chair, I’ll wait till the question is called.

I didn’t have a question on this at this point, and I’m sorry for my delay in coming. No problem. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, just speaking to the motion, Mr.

Chair, I would like the word further comments or the word further removed. We haven’t heard any comments. That is why I’m referring it. Councillor, Councillor, I was trying to help you by drafting your motion.

There’s no need to say you want the word further removed. I’ll remove it right away. Thank you. Okay, because that’s what I was trying to do is actually I was trying to be helpful.

So let’s take the word further out, and then that’ll, are you still prepared to second that, Councillor Hilliard? Yes, I’m just not seeing the word further in mind. Maybe I just updated my screen, it disappeared. Yeah, there’s clerks confirming to me that the word further wasn’t in the motion.

So you know what you’ve seconded. Okay, so further conversation on the motion for referral, Councillor Layman. Thank you. Okay, through you, Chair, to staff.

I just want to get an idea if, you know, this memorandum of draft understanding goes to upper TAMS and they have concerns with this and want to make changes. Would we, would this come back to this committee with those concerns and with those questions? Or if not, maybe I can see where the Councillor’s going on this, if you could just kind of help me with the process here. So yeah, you’ve heard the question, I think is, would it come back if there were concerns expressed by the upper TAMS River Conservation Authority?

Thank you, through the chair. So based on the recommendations before you, we have a delegation to the DCM of Planning and Economic Development. But if there were concerns from the Conservation Authority, we would be working with them to refine the, refine what’s in the, the DMOU that you have in front of you. I’m not sure, perhaps Mr.

Barrett wants to add a little bit further, I’ll pass it over to him. Thank you to the chair. I think it’s probably helpful just to give a little bit of context, Mr. Feldberg indicated, this goes back all the way to 1997.

And it was put together and maybe memorandum of understanding is just a bit of an unfortunate term given that there is an official memorandum of understanding that is required to establish a relationship in the levees between the city and the conservation authorities and Mr. Feldberg said, that’s not what this is. This goes back to 1997 and it was to help and it deals only with planning application matters. And it was to help clarify the roles of the city and the Conservation Authority when it came to providing comments and understanding the input on applications, planning applications.

The original memorandum of understanding actually asked the upper Thames to provide a lot of this assistance on the city’s behalf because we did not have that expertise in house. We did not have an ecologist. We didn’t have the hydrogeology specialties in the house that we have. We didn’t have the stormwater management specializations that we have in house at that time.

And so we relied very heavily on the technical advice of the upper Thames. In the original memorandum back in 1997’s, when the city first actually committed to the UTRC, to hire an ecologist in house so that we begin to be able to provide this advice to you as members of council from your own staff rather than relying on the advice from others. As Mr. Feldberg said, fast forward.

Now we’ve been in discussions for a number of years. How this relates to timeliness of response and to make the process run a little bit faster is to essentially establish the lanes. The upper Thames spends a lot of time and a lot of staff resources commenting on natural heritage matters. That in fact, they don’t need to.

We now have that expertise in house. And it takes away from their ability to comment on those matters, but they do have the regulatory and statutory authority, which are the regulatory matters related to floodplain and hazard lands. So what the intent of this was to clarify, again, for the purpose of planning applications that we would expect and would still rely on, their assistance and their technical advice and comments on those hazard and regulatory matters, but we would be able to now handle the advice to you as committee and council as it related to the natural heritage matters. We didn’t need to rely on that expertise in the upper Thames.

So quite simply, that’s what this is all about is to try to clarify that. With respect to the referral, I’m not too sure that it’s much different from the process that was going to go ahead anyway. What, what, what clause A says is, this is the frame of the discussions that we’re intending to have with the upper Thames. We’re asking you council, are you happy with this?

Is there anything that you want us to add? Is there anything you’d like us to subtract? And if, if this is good, this will be the frame of our discussions and this is the outline of what it is that we intend to put forward with respect to our ongoing relationship as it relates to hearing the input on planning act matters. And what it goes on further to say is that, is we’re asking essentially that it substantially conforms to this.

If it’s different, we will come back and we will come back to you and say, well, we thought that in fact it was clear and advisable that they not participate in this, but they feel that they have this role and they want to bring it forward. And this is, that’s the kind of thing that we report back to you. And so that was really what, what this is all about. So there was going to be that ongoing conversation.

And I think as was noted by Councillor Lewis, that’s what this process is to do, is to formalize this, to say we now know where our council stands as it relates to how they see this relationship going forward. Now is the time to have that conversation with the upper Thames, see how the upper Thames feels about how that relationship goes going forward as it relates to providing that input on the planning application matters. And if everything’s fine, then clauses B and C say you’re good to go, establish that new agreement. And if it’s not good to go, then we would come back and speak to you.

If I may, maybe to add that level of assurance would be to put something in clause A or new clause D that would essentially say, if there’s something that comes up that seems to be inconsistent with this preliminary direction, that we would come back and report and have that discussion with you. Otherwise, as Mr. Felberg indicated, if the referral doesn’t go through, we would report out to you at the end of the process to say here’s our new MOU, this is where we stand and this is what’s going on. So I just want to provide that background for— Okay, so just to go back to Councillor Layman’s question.

Without adding anything, if Upper Thames has a difference of opinion about this agreement, it would come back to committee. But for extra caution, we could add that to the motion so that it’s specifically understood. And I don’t, I hope I’m not gonna get a lengthy answer. Just, is that basically where we are from someone?

Chair, if you’re asking me, that would be, yes, that’s what I’m saying. Thank you, Mayor Holden. Thanks, Chair. So I just want to be clear and again, apologies to you and to the committee for coming in a little bit later.

So, is the motion, I see the staff recommendation and quite frankly, I was extremely comfortable with the staff recommendation to proceed accordingly. But can I just clarify before I make any other comment, brief comment, what the intent is right now? Are we referring it back again? No, the motion— And I apologize, Mr.

Chair, from the perch I’m in right now, I cannot see the motion. And so I’m gonna be relying on your eyes. Okay, the motion that was brought and seconded is that the matter will go back to the upper Thames River Conservation Authority and staff will come back, provide us with their comments and then there will be a further step which would be approval or not approval or something like that. In other words, it requires a further step to come back here before approval.

If we just leave it as is, that step may not take if the upper Thames says yes, we agree with this agreement. So that’s the difference. You know, I’m trying to understand what’s new or different from even the 1997, but having said that, Chair, I’m not gonna support taking it back again. I’m going to, if this fails, I’m going to proceed with the staff recommendation.

But we get to a stage of talking about talking about talking and I thought Mr. Barrett did an excellent job of distinguishing the roles between upper Thames and I’m not sure if I’m sensing that this may be fighting for chicken seed or fighting for feed. I don’t know, forgive the analogy, but from where I am, I thought that Mr. Barrett explained it well and I’m prepared to vote against referring it back from receiving the staff recommendation.

So just to let you know, thanks. Do we have further comments on the referral? Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Am I, to sum up my referral back?

Well, it’s committee. So you’re just, you’re speaking. Someone may speak after you. Oh, okay.

Yeah, I’m hoping my colleagues would support it. I do think tonight we are approving something substantially without receiving any comments from upper Thames Conservation Authority. For me, I would like to know what they think about this before we approve it. I would encourage all of us to do that.

I think we all want the same thing here. We want to make the planning application process faster, more efficient, not to duplicate it. But right now, there is time. This is a draft to understand what the comments from upper Thames would be is very important to me as a counselor and as a board member.

And if they do not agree with something or they have concerns, I would wanna know about that before I approve something. So I’m hoping my colleagues will support the referral back. It is a draft. This is a draft that we’re speaking to.

And if it comes back with these comments, I would really appreciate that ‘cause right now I have a number of questions and concerns of this approval that we’re going to be doing here tonight. All right, any further comments on their referral? All right, I’ll call the vote on the referral now. Chair, without my voting apparatus, I’ll vote no, thank you.

Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion fails to two four. Those defeated. So we’ll go back to someone who’s prepared to move that.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Comments on the main motion being none will call the vote. Oh, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. It’s kind of tough sometimes when you’re not there in that room. And I would like to just encourage this committee here. We did hear from staff that if upper times has concerns that is inconsistent with staff’s recommendation here, we will, as a committee, not hear of it.

And for us, I think that for a planning committee, it’s something that is important for us. Sorry, there’s a point of order from Councillor Lewis. Mr. Chair, but for in fairness, that’s not what we heard from our staff a few minutes ago.

Mr. Barrett confirmed that if there was substantive differences, it would come back to us. Through you, I’m just looking for clarification on that before we go further on this discussion. Clerk, that’s my recollection.

I don’t know if anyone else. I’m prepared to rule that that was what I heard, that they said if there was a major difference of opinion or something they wouldn’t agree to, it’s gonna come back to us anyways. And that’s what I heard from staff. Yes, that’s correct.

Go ahead, Councillor, just don’t, that’s, it’s not accurate to say that if major, if there were differences of opinion, they wouldn’t come back, it will come back. I would encourage the committee to support the D, just in case there, it is inconsistent that it would be reported back to us. So I could see, I do not have much support at the committee here. I’ll leave it with you.

I guess we all interpret things in a different way and I will not be supporting this motion since I do have a number of unanswered questions. Thank you. Thank you, any further comments, questions? All right, we’ll call the vote on the motion.

Sure, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion being on. The first matter is a public participation meeting at four 915 to 919 Commissioners Road East.

And I will need a motion to open the public participation meeting move by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Unless there’s something further, I will call the vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Thank you.

Chair. Variable presentation from staff. That’s correct. Good afternoon, Chair Esquire, members of PEC staff and members of the audience.

Through you, Chair Esquire, this is Laurel Davies Snyder, planning in the economic services and supports. For item 3.1, it can be found on page 339 of your agenda package. This is a requested amendment to the Zoning By-law for 915 to 919 Commissioners Road East. And pictures of the site and the buildings are on page 341 of your agenda.

Sorry, could I just hear, there’s some sound with your microphone? I think it’s too close to you, maybe it’s too close. Okay, it apologizes. That’s okay.

Is it better or not? That is better, yes, thank you. Okay, it was too close. Would you like me to start again or just continue?

No, I think you can continue. Okay, great. Thanks for pointing that out. So just to summarize the application quickly, the applicant requested an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit a retail store of up to 111 square meters, that’s 1200 square feet, in an existing four unit commercial building, which does have other commercial uses and a reduction of parking requirements to the existing 51 on-site parking spaces.

The existing range of permitted uses would continue to apply to the site and this application does not involve any increase to the size or height of the existing buildings. So they would be adding this retail use strictly to the existing space. So this requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Official Plan and the London Plan and to note, staff did not receive any public feedback at all for this application. And would you like me to read staff’s recommendation?

No, that’s fine, I think we’re able to read that. Thank you very much. Great, so that concludes my presentation and staff are available and happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you.

Is the applicant present? Mr. Chair, the agent for the applicant, Mr. Allen’s here.

All right, Mr. Allen. My apologies, Mr. Chair, I was muted there.

That’s okay. Okay, good afternoon. Good afternoon, members of the committee and Mr. Chair.

We are acting on behalf of the applicant and with me today, representing the applicant as Mike Jane, he’s available to answer questions as well. At this time, we’d like to express our support for the findings and recommendations of the Development Services Report presented or prepared by Ms. Davies Snyder and somewhat presented. In particular, we agree with the findings that the addition of a small-scale retail store permission at this location would be compatible with the existing development context and keeping with the Fisher Plan permissions applying to these lands.

Also, with respect to the requested parking reduction, we’d like to advise the committee that the existing parking arrangement between Tim Hortons and the Plaza Building, the two buildings on site, has operated effectively for several years and introducing a small retail use into the existing plaza should not result in any sort of appreciable increase in parking demand at this location. Finally, I’d like to thank staff for their attention to this application. Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions the committee members may have. All right, any technical questions only at this time for either the applicant or staff there being none, we will move on to the members of the public.

Are there any members of the public present? No members of, and there’s no other members of the public who wish to speak, so I’ll be looking for a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hayley or seconded by Councillor Layman. If there’s nothing further, I will call the vote. I’ll vote yes chair, thank you.

Thank you. Closing the vote. I’ll go to Councillor Yall, hand up for a long time. I was just gonna speak to this just briefly, ‘cause it is in my ward, and I’m quite happy to see a retail store going into a closed-up sandwich shop.

It’s just nice, it’ll complete that strip and all there won’t be any holes in it. So I’m assuming you’re prepared to move the recommendation. Yes, I am very much so, thank you. We’ll have someone seconded, and then we can have comments.

Seconded by Mayor Holder, comments or questions from the committee. There being none, I will call the question. I’ll vote yes chair. Thank you.

So Layman. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Moving on to item three point, participation meeting with regard to 1993 Queen’s Avenue, and I will need someone to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, or something further, I’ll call the vote. I’ll vote yes chair.

You are a big fan of public participation meetings, I know that Mayor Holder. I love them all. I don’t assume you’re always going to be voting positive. And I will always say so, thank you.

There you go. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Staff presentation, or staff presentation? Ms.

Debbert, were you two presenting? I noticed you were not muted. You were now muted again. I’m one of the managers to assist us as to who might be doing the presentation this morning.

You’re gonna have to help us out, somebody and tell us who is speaking to this matter. You’re Barrett, you assist with who’s doing a presentation on this? Somebody speak? Debbert, are you presenting on this item?

You are unmuted. Pull the staff plug, there’s one big plug and it’s somebody pulled it. You’re making the presentation? You muted all of the staff?

It’s okay, if you could teach me how to mute all the rest of Council, I would love that sometimes. Ms. Debbert, are you presenting on this item? Yes, I had planned to.

All right, go ahead whenever you’re ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem.

I may have had a glitch here. Don’t worry about it, we’ve had a lot of glitches over the term of COVID, so you go ahead. Thank you, this is Barb Debbert. This is an application to apply a new temporary use zone at 193 Queens Avenue.

The purpose of the requested amendment is to recognize and allow for the continued operation of the existing surface commercial parking lot on the property for a maximum of three years. The property is in the downtown place type of the London plan and is designated downtown in the 1989 official plan as well. The property is also within sub-area four of the downtown parking strategy study area, which is identified as having the second highest utilization rate of 81%. The site is also identified as an underutilized site in our move forward London’s downtown plan.

Through the circulation of this application, some members of the public were concerned that permissions to recognize and allow for the continued operation of the site as a surface commercial parking lot would prevent long-term redevelopment. The 1989 official plan and the London plan both provide criteria to generally inform the review of applications for temporary zones and more specifically the review of new or existing temporary zoning to permit surface commercial parking lots in the downtown. Among these criteria are the potential long-term use of the temporary use, the degree to which the temporary use may be frustrating the viability of the intended long-term use of the lands and the demonstrated need for surface parking in the area surrounding the subject site. Daph is satisfied that these criteria have been met for this application and that the recognition and permission for surface commercial parking for a period of three years is appropriate to serve businesses and residents in the downtown until such time as alternative parking and transit options are available.

The recommended amendment would not compromise long-term redevelopment, but rather provide an interim use and help meet high parking demand in the area until redevelopment occurs. The use of the site as a surface commercial parking lot has demonstrated a measure of compatibility over time and as such staff is satisfied that the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and is in conformity with the temporary use policies of the London plan and the 1989 official plan. It is recommended that three-year extension be approved. Thank you and staff are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, it’s the applicant here. Yes, Mr. Chair, Mr. Allen is here.

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair again and members of the committee.

Again, Scott Allen from MHBC planning we’re acting on behalf of the applicant. With me today, representing the applicant is Muki Pandaki and he’s available to respond questions. At this time, we’d like to express our support for the Development Services Report presented by Ms. Debert.

In particular, we agree with the findings that a temporary commercial parking, that temporary commercial parking permissions at this location would help maintain convenient access to downtown offices, retailers, venues and residents in the near term. We also agree that this temporary permission would not undermine the long-term redevelopment potential of these lands for the broader planning objectives for London’s downtown. These findings also reflect commentary presented in our planning report, which was submitted in support of this application. Also, Mr.

Chair, as noted in the city staff report, we’d like to advise the committee that the applicant is currently exploring development plans for this area that would include this specific property. So to conclude, we’d like to thank staff for their attention to this application and we’re available to answer any questions any members may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Technical questions only, please, from committee at this time. All right, there aren’t any. So we’ll move on to public participation. Is there anybody here to speak?

Yes, Mr. Chair, Ms. McKee-Tien is here to speak. I’m sorry, Ms.

McKee-Tien. Ms. McKee-Tien, are you present? I am.

Can everyone hear me? We can. Go ahead. Okay.

Whenever you’re ready. First of all, I can picture Mayor Holder’s smile disappearing because while he might love PPMs, he probably is tired of hearing VACO. As may the rest of you be, and I do apologize for that. No, just to be clear, no, that just isn’t.

I had no Mayor Holder. I’m saying that joking. Oh, good, okay. Yeah.

  • I’m absolutely saying that joking, but you know, don’t think that I’m doing anything other than— Not a problem. Okay. And I hope that’s okay. That’s okay.

Yeah, I, you know, we fully understand that City Council cannot tell property owners, you know, within limits what they can and cannot do with their property and that they can’t tell developers what they can and cannot do and where they should build. But City Council can, in their decisions, send a message about what they want to have happen on certain blocks of land within the downtown core. And the Farhee organization, they don’t only own 193 Queens Ave, but they also own 199 Queens Ave, where a heritage building was demolished 10 or so years ago, after Mr. Farhee with an architect and a really, really lovely rendering of a high-rise building to be developed there, convinced Council of the day to allow that demolition because development was imminent.

And now we’re hearing that development is once more imminent. And I guess that what we would suggest to the pack and to Council is that if you really want development to be imminent here denying yet another renewal of a temporary parking permit zoning would perhaps incent the owner of the property to really get moving on what at the end of the day will probably be a very, very positive addition to downtown. That’s all I have to say. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any further, no, there’s no further public participation. So if I could just have a motion to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Layman. Seconded by anything further on that, I’ll call the vote.

I’m sorry to have to vote yes, because I hate to close the PPM chair. Ah, I knew it. I knew we would try to get the last word on my reference. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

All right, questions, comments? Go ahead, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’ll just put the staff recommendation on the floor and then if I’ve got a seconder for that, I’ll offer comments.

Seconded by Councillor Layman, questions or, let’s start with questions. Well, since the motion’s on the floor, Mr. Chair, I’d actually like to speak to the motion. Sure, absolutely, you’re right.

Okay, thank you. So with respect to this, a renewal for three years. You know, I think there’s and the member of the public who spoke, Ms. Keating referenced the other properties in the immediate area.

There’s a city property sandwiched in between and I would point out to committee members that very recently at Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, we directed staff to actually keep that item in the core area action plan to come back to us with potential for what might be done there. And there was discussion at the committee about mixed residential parking commercial, that kind of thing. There’s high utilization in this parking lot. And well, surface parking is not the highest and best use of this property until such time as we have other alternatives for parking for Dundas Place.

It’s actually a pretty critical spot to be providing parking for the businesses on Dundas Place itself. Businesses that certainly need all the help that they can get right now as we hopefully are moving into a COVID recovery stage. So I’m gonna encourage colleagues to support this extension. I certainly am encouraged and hope that the applicant does in fact bring forward a development proposal on this lot.

It would be good to see something that is not just surface level parking, but until we have parking elsewhere for Dundas Place available, we need to continue to provide that for the businesses to have a chance to succeed. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? I have a question, oh, I had a question, but I didn’t see Councillor Hopkins is gonna go ahead.

So you go ahead. Go ahead Councillor. Sorry about that, Mr. Chair, but I do have a quick question just following up on, is this an extension or is this a new temporary three year parking plan?

Yes, through you, Mr. Chair, this is actually a new temporary use zone. It may be just to clarify though, and maybe I can help, but how long has this been a parking lot? I’ve been in downtown a long time.

It’s been a parking lot, I think for a long time. Yes, Mr. Chair, the review of our aerial photography would indicate that it’s been a parking lot since 2007. Thank you.

I have a question and I’ll ask it, and if someone wants me to get out of the chair to ask it or I’ll do it, but this is to the applicant. And just preface this by, a lot of people are asking the questions that are being asked by the ACO tonight, which is that we’ve heard a lot of this before, and the parking lots keep coming back. So when I’m reading your justification report, it says the site is being considered for future redevelopment opportunities, and Far E Holdings Corporation will advance project planning for these lands in response to favorable market conditions. And then it says until such time as is a comprehensive development plan, it’s going to be, you want to continue to operate it as a commercial surface parking lot.

So what do we need to understand favorable market conditions to mean? In other words, what are the favorable market conditions that would lead you to develop this property? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’ll briefly respond since it was my report. That statement was maybe had some generic nature to it, but certainly in discussions with Far E Holdings, this site is identified as one that’s being closely targeted for redevelopment considerations. And to Councillor Lewis’ point, this property was part of the proposal that Far E Holdings Corporation had put together in response to the city’s request for qualifications for the 185 Queens Avenue proposal. And that is mentioned as well in my planning report.

And without getting into specifics, certainly that the request for qualifications, that was a serious application by Far E Holdings and their project team. And similar types of development considerations are being evaluated now. And in my apologies if that language was somewhat generic in my report. No, that’s fine.

You clarified what you meant by that. And that helped build on what Councillor Lewis said. So I thank you very much for that. Any other questions?

Councillor Hopkins. It’s not so much a question, Mr. Chair. I just want to make my comments and I appreciate the report from staff.

Reading the report speaks to the importance of this area being a critical spot for development. And it also speaks to the importance of it being a high area for parking as well. And I would like to encourage the developer to develop here. This is a place where development can occur.

It’s also important to note this is already a commercial parking lot. By not supporting a new three year parking lot, it will still stay as a parking lot, I assume if no development goes forward. So I would not support the recommendation to supporting development in this area and setting. That tone I think is really important.

We need development downtown and I will not be supporting the recommendation. Thank you, Councillor. Any further comments? Councillor Layman.

Thank you. You know, I understand the frustration with the surface parking lots and many folks want to see development get going here. The tough thing is it’s kind of a chicken and egg thing. If we want to see a downtown thrive, as we can see from the numbers in the report, you know, in this area, 90% utilization is considered a maximum practical occupancy and so it’s three and four to eight, nine, 81 respectively, which may make it difficult for visitors to completely find parking in these areas.

And what we want to see done that street thrive. And we’ve, again, we’ve put a lot of resources into getting that street going and parking, mentioned in this report is critical to that. You know, we had spoken before and other times about a possible parking garage, but until such a facility exists, we can’t risk sending a message at the expense of the businesses along Dundas Street in the surrounding area. So I’m hoping that development continues but I’d also like to see the city explore, you know, the option of a parking garage, which at which point would take the parking resources off and then we could consider, you know, cutting back on these temporary permits.

Thank you. Further comments? Yeah, I’m just going to make some comments. Could I turn that chair over to the vice chair, please?

I have the chair. Go ahead, Councillor Squire. Thank you. I think it’s time that in terms of the debate about parking lots that we start as a council and as a committee start setting some parameters as to when we’re going to approve continuation of parking lots and when we’re not.

And I think we’re getting into discussion and starting to get into discussion where those of us who might approve the continuation of parking lots are being people that are not wanting these sites to be developed. And then if you don’t want to extend it, you’re discouraging parking. I think that’s not a great argument to be having. I think that we should look at the actual criteria that we’re applying and see if they are met in particular cases.

So for now on, certainly I’m going to be looking at each case and saying, does this meet the requirements? And if someone comes to us and says, well, I want to continue this temporary parking lot ‘cause I just haven’t really thought about redeveloping it. That’s not going to be good enough certainly for me. In this particular case, there’s a couple of things.

First of all, it is a high use parking lot. We know that I think the percentage was 85% use. And that tells me that it’s probably being used for people who are working in offices and don’t otherwise have parking available. And on other occasions, people who are actually coming downtown.

So it has a valid continuing use for now as a parking lot. I’m also very conscious of the fact that there was an application related to these lands as part of the comprehensive parking strategy downtown. And it was not the applicant who discontinued that. It was actually us who discontinued that.

We actually took it off the table, at least on a temporary basis, I think until this fall, staff wanted to take it off permanently. So I don’t think you can say there’s no desire to develop or an actual application went in to do something with this land. So I’m satisfied right now, this meets the criteria. But I would encourage everyone moving forward that we really look at these matters carefully and decide which ones we’re going to approve and what circumstances.

So those are my comments. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. I’ll return the chair back to you, Councillor Squire. No further comments, I’ll call the vote.

That’s my first mistake of the evening. I’ll have you know, Councillor Layman. Chair, as much as you never make mistakes in my eyes, I will vote yes. Now he’s trying to close in the vote.

The motion carries five to one. 3.3, which is a public participation meeting related to 1810, 1820, 1840, and 1850. Adelaide Street North. So we’ll have to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. Anything further, they’re not being anything further, I’ll call the vote. Yes, Chair, thank you. Thanks.

Closing the vote, the motion carries. All right, looking for a staff presentation. Good afternoon. This is Justin Adwa, manager of Long Range Planning and Research.

Before I get into my presentation, I just like to acknowledge Joanne Lee who’s on the line and she’s the planner on my team who prepared the report and she provided me these notes for the presentation. So this application is to an existing commercial site at the southeast corner of Adelaide Street North and Sunningdale Road East. It will facilitate the expansion and completion of the existing commercial plaza there, which is currently partially built and partially occupied. Specifically, the amendment is to add the neighbourhood shopping area for zone, which will broaden the range of commercial uses and also increase the maximum floor area from 4,000 square meters to 6,000 square meters.

And this would allow for the proposed development, which comes in at 5,104 square meters. There’s also a proposal in the zoning to add a special policy, which would permit an individual use up to 952 square meters whereas 500 square meters is the current maximum for any commercial use other than a grocery store. This application or the site rather is within the neighbourhood commercial note of the 1989 official plan and within the shopping area place type of the London plan. In our view and based on our analysis, the proposal conforms with the policies of both plans.

Specifically looking to the shopping area in the London plan. In our view, this is a consistent development with the long-term vision for that place type. It’s also consistent with the provincial policy statement and on that basis, the staff recommendation is to approve this application. Thank you very much.

Is the applicant present? Yes, Mr. Mayor, the agent, Mr. Kirkness is in attendance.

Mr. Kirkness, are you there, Mr. Kirkness? Sorry, Mr.

Chair and many members, it’s Laverne Kirkness and I have with me, Ali Soufan and Karl Rameer as from York developments, but we thank you for looking at this application. We thank the staff for bringing forth a supportive recommendation and we would ask that you adopt it and recommend it to council. I just want to say that this is probably the single largest commercial centre in the Stony Brook uplands area at Adelaide and Sunnydale. Not coming maceville, of course, but up in those communities, this is the largest site and it was owned way back in 2000.

I guess it’s difficult to foresee, but we kind of think, at least in our experience, it was kind of underzoned in the beginning and we’ve been trying to make the best of it. We’ve had to go to committee of adjustment a few times for minor variances. We had a couple of site plan amendments and it’s probably frustrating for the community ‘cause they keep getting these notices. It’s frustrating for staff because we keep tinkering with the zoning, matching it up with the marketplace and of course, it’s frustrating for us too, but this zoning amendment really deals with the last piece to allow this commercial centre to develop and gives this a zoning to do that, to kind of clean up all that.

So we’ve been kind of working with staff to certainly bring this application forth, to increase the amount of commercial square footage and to allow a one larger store than what was normally intended in the old zoning. So with that, I think what this does is recognize the site for what it’s worth and that is it’s an important community commercial centre serving uplands and Stony Creek, Stony Brook, even Grenfell and those kind of communities and so we’re hoping that the planning committee looks favorably upon this and certainly if there are any questions of planning nature, I can try and answer any specific questions then Ali and Carlos are here to do that. Thank you. Thank you.

Any technical questions for either staff or the applicant or being none, we’ll go to the public. Are there any public members present? No. Mr.

Chair, I don’t have any members of the public. However, I do have someone joined us with the initials HP and I have no idea what item they might be here for. Could I allow them to make sure it’s not this item? Of course.

Whoever’s joined us with the initials HP, you can now speak. Could you please identify yourself and what item you are here for? So I just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. There’s nothing further.

I’ll vote yes, Chair. Consistency is important, Mr. Mayor. I hope so.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, I’ll turn it over to the someone prepared to move the staff recommendation. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Mayor Holder. Any questions or comments being on it?

Oh, go ahead, Mayor Holder. Well, thanks very much, Chair. I’m seconded to this motion because I’m quite comfortable supporting the staff recommendation to proceed. First, it’s consistent as has been mentioned for the policy statement.

It’s consistent with the enforced policies of the Canadian Official Plan. And I think to me, and I’m just gonna steal words right from the report in terms of providing the appropriate intensity for the site and providing, if I might say, a service that I think is necessary for the community in that area. So for all of those reasons, I’m prepared to support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further? Then I’ll just call the vote. Sure, I’ll vote yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Four is a public participation meeting with regard to 1146 to 1156 baseline road. I will need someone to move opening the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis, which I think further, I will call the vote. I’ll just raise your chair up with yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Do we have a staff presentation? I think we do. We do, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Melanie Vivian, the site development planner on this file. So I have prepared a slide to show it does begin at page 441 of your agenda.

Okay, just give us a second. Yep, no problem. 441, which agenda is on the added agenda, sorry. Yep, on the electronic one.

Thank you. All right, I hope everyone has that it’s on the added agenda at 441 and you can begin, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So the proposed development here is located 1146 to 1156 Byron baseline road, which is west of Colonel Talbot Road in east of Fuller Road. As shown on page 442, the proposed development consists of one stacked back-to-back townhouse block and one two-story townhouse block consisting of a total of 28 units. I’m moving on to slide 443 there. The stacked back-to-back townhouses are proposed to be 12 meters in height with the two-story townhouse opposed at seven meters in height.

So those stacked back-to-back townhouses meet the regulations of the zoning by-law, whereas the two-story townhouses are actually supposed to be less height than what was previously approved at eight meters. And then on to the page 444 there, the site was rezoned last year to permit the cluster townhouse dwellings at a density of 52 units per hectare. So the current proposal is below the maximum permitted density of the zoning by-law. The parking on site is provided at a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit, which also complies with the regulations of the zoning by-law.

Three visitor parking spaces are also being provided, which meets the intent of the site plan control by-law in that regard. In terms of lock coverage, the applicant is proposing a lock coverage of 22%, which is well below the permitted maximum lock coverage. And a landscape open space of 54%, which is above the minimum requirement. And I’m on to page 445 now.

The council resolution from last year’s rezoning included direction to the site plan approval authority for enhanced boundary landscaping along the east, west, and south property boundaries, a deep well-waste storage system outside of the easement, the building orientation towards Byron baseline road, the parking lot design, including landscape islands, and generous separation between the parking lot and that easterly property line. And adequately sized amenity area, as well as the retention of as many trees on site as possible. And I’m on to page 446 there for those of you following along. So with through the site plan application approval process, we received 10 comments from the public with respect to this application.

And concerns have been raised for the privacy, landscaping, lighting from the parking area, garbage collection, and storage, there was parking concerns, as well as the impacts on the services within the area due to the increased density. One of the more prominent matters that we’ve been working with the members of the public and the applicant as well is landscaping. So there’s currently 57 trees on site. Only seven of those trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed development.

As identified on the landscaping plan, as shown on the slide there on page 446, there’s a mix of 41 trees and 314 new plantings proposed. The proposed landscaping along the east, west and south property boundaries exceed those planting requirements of the site plan control by-law. And the landscaping that’s in place also provides for the screening and privacy qualities. It is worth noting that there is a row of cedars along the back property line that is proposed to be retained with additional landscaping being provided to help fill in any gaps that are existing.

Staff of the opinion that the proposed plan satisfies council’s resolution. I am happy to go into any more detail and answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Is the applicant present? Yes, I am. Carla Buraney. Thank you.

If you’d like to make a presentation, you don’t have to. You go ahead, you have five minutes. Well, I wasn’t prepared to make a presentation. Don’t have to.

(laughing) Yeah, we’re very excited about this project and the construction of the homes. We think it’ll add value to the community. And if anybody from the public would have any questions, I’m here to answer them. Thank you very much.

I didn’t want to put you on the spot. (laughing) Sorry. Any technical questions for either the applicant or staff before we go to the public? This is a site plan meeting, so there’ll be concerns from the public.

Mayor Holder. Thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify with staff that this application from Brownie Homes did not get support the last time, if I’m understanding correctly, but what are the primary differences from the last effort to put this forward and where we are today? I understand that is correct, please.

Go ahead, staff. Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. The original proposal on this site was for an apartment building, and that was back in 2018, 2019, if my memory serves correct there.

The apartment building was appealed to the local planning appeal tribunal where it was subsequently refused there as well. So the applicant then came back with this townhouse development, which was approved by council just last year’s for that re-zoning process. Thank you. Any further technical?

Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah, for me, no, I appreciate the clarification picture. Thank you. Any technical questions from other members of council or the committee, I should say?

Councillor Landon. Through you to staff, I just want to be clear that it’s mentioned that this did pass the Urban Design Review Panel would just make 100% sure it’s this particular design, not the one that was appealed, is that correct? Go ahead, staff. Through you, Mr.

Chair, that’s correct. So this would have gone to the Urban Design Peer Review Panel through the previous zoning by-law amendment application, and this was the one that was heard. Thank you. All right, if there’s no further technical questions, we’ll go to members of the public for comment.

Through Mr. Mayor, Mr. Thurston. Keeps calling me Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Holder. Sorry, Mr. Chair, my apologies, Mr. Mayor and Mr.

Chair. Oh, you don’t need to apologize for that. He is worthy of any way he’s here. He’s worthy of many ways.

Go ahead. Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Thurston is in attendance.

All right, Mr. Thurston. Hi, this is Crystal, his wife. Okay.

Greg sends his regrets. Okay, so it’s Kristen Thurston? Crystal. Crystal, I’m sorry.

That’s okay. Thank you. He didn’t want to need to pass anything on. He put me down just in case he had a question if anything else was raised, but I think our concerns are well recorded, well documented in many spots.

So I don’t have anything to ask. Okay, is there a question that you wanted to ask ‘cause we can get it answered? No, not right now. Oh, okay, great.

Thank you very much. To Chair, I believe Mr. McLeigh is in attendance. Mr.

McLeigh. Mr. McLeigh, you were unmuted, you can go ahead. Mr.

McLeigh, oh, there it is. Mr. McLeigh. - Okay, sorry.

Yes. Can you hear me now? Yeah, and your first name? John.

John McLeigh. Okay, so you have five minutes to tell us your concerns or whatever you wish to say and then your time starts now. Okay, thank you. First of all, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak.

In the document, it does reference the public input in multiple cases and that’s very reassuring that our voices have been heard, so thank you for that. I do have two questions. There’s reference in the document to a development agreement and I would like to understand more about that. Who was the agreement between and how does it get enforced after the site is complete?

And then there is additional comment that I have a question around 104 trees to enhance hedging and I apologize, I’m sure I’m not getting the precise wording. I’d like to understand how that success measure is rated ‘cause the objective of that is to enhance privacy. How was that graded that? ‘Cause it’s not just planting 104 trees to enhance the hedging.

How do we know that that was successful? Okay, we’ll get those answered for you. Anything else? Is there anything else you wanted to say?

No, that’s all. Okay, great. Thank you for joining us tonight. There’s no other members of the public present.

So I just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lehman. Seconded by Councillor Hillier, all the vote. Well, yes, Chair. Thank you.

And the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, two questions. The first is, what is the development agreement? Who is it between and I guess, how is it enforced and what the purpose of it is?

And maybe staff could help with that. Yes, for sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So the question relating to the development agreement. So the development agreement is going to be registered on title. It will conclude a number of clauses that are standard as well as special provisions. So I guess I’ll kind of touch on your second question there as well in terms of the hedging and how we know if it’s going to last to provide those screening quality.

So there will be a clause within that development agreement requiring the two year inspection for those landscaping components. And it will also include the replacement of them should any of them fail to thrive in that environment. So that will be added to the DA. So as I said mentioned, that development agreement will be registered on title.

It will include a number of clauses, special provisions. It will also include the stamped and approved plans. So essentially what is built will look like the plans that are provided there. So the development agreement is registered on title.

Like I said, it’s between the city and the applicant. So it’ll be with us and Brawny Holmes. And how is it enforced if it isn’t complied with by the developer? I think that was one of the questions.

Yeah, for sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for reminding me of that one. So they are obligated by securities.

So through the development agreement, we will collect securities through that process. All right. So they put up security and if they don’t comply with the agreement, the city would take that security. That’s correct, yep.

So they have to comply with the agreement and the approved plans before we can release securities. And that’s done through our inspection process. Great. And just with regard to the 104 trees, I think the issue is whether, how would you know if it had been successful in providing hedging or privacy for the site?

How would that be judged? I think was the question. Yeah, for sure. I can touch on that more as well.

So through that development agreement, we would have a clause stating that after two years, they would have to go out do the inspections. If there were any impacts or any trees or hedging that wasn’t surviving, it would have to be replaced. And that’s included within that development agreement to ensure that that is completed. Great.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I just want to get those taken care of and I’ll turn the matter over to the committee. Councillor Hill here.

Yes, I’m looking at the map here. I’m just curious, what is the closest these three-story units are to the neighboring houses? I’m seeing some pools and I’m wondering which, I know the trees are not coming down, but trees do come down. What is the approximation to the neighboring properties of the three-story unit?

Go ahead, Scott. Or the applicant, if whoever can answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sorry, I’m just trying to open my plan really quick here. There we go. The setback there is six meters from the three-story townhouses and that would be to the property to the West. And that meets the regulations of the zoning by-law.

Councillor. The six meters just seems fairly close for three plus stories. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the committee?

Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you. Mr. Chair, I’ve got a couple of questions and then if I may be through you to staff, just following up confirming that there is a hydrogeological report still, there is still on this application a holding provision because there is a well to the West of this property.

And I have heard from that neighbor, the concerns because they are going to be keeping there well. I wanna make sure that that holding provision is still there and the opportunities for the owner to get a hold of the hydrogeological report as well would be my first question. And the second question relates to the lighting. I know a big concern with this infill development was the importance of privacy and the lighting around.

Do we know where we are with the site plan at the moment when it comes to lighting? Two questions for you. Go ahead. Yep, go ahead, staff.

I thank you. It’s Michael Pease, manager of site plans. I can answer the first question with respect to the hydrogeological. There is, and through you, Mr.

Chair, there is a holding provision as alluded to. It’s still on site. The hydrogeological report has been accepted by staff, but the holding will remain. Likely it’ll come off at a future planning environment committee meeting along with potentially the holding provision for this H5.

So we would provide a bit of a summary in that report as to how it would be addressed. But effectively, there are some recommendations which could make their way into the development agreement as well in terms of monitoring and acceptance. But, and I believe you had a question as well about the residents being able to obtain a copy of that. And if I do recall, I believe they’ve been in touch with Ms.

Vivian. And if there are any, I believe they’ve been in also provided direction to report or to request that through our staff. And if they are having challenges, certainly they could follow up with us at our general email address or through Ms. Vivian as well as I believe they do have for email address.

I will let Ms. Vivian follow up with the lighting question. Go ahead. Thank you through you, Mr.

Chair. As it pertains to the lighting, we are still currently reviewing the photometric plan to make sure that the impacts to abutting properties are none or very minimum. So I don’t have a solid photometric plan at this time. We are still reviewing that.

Thank you. And if I may ask one last question. Go ahead. Mr.

Chair to the planner, regarding the tree preservation plan. I think my hearing’s going off maybe tonight, but I want to confirm that we are keeping the 50 trees, seven are being removed and that only 41 trees are being planted along with 314 new plantings. I want to make sure the public that’s come out tonight and that may be listening understands the tree preservation plan and what’s expected. Go ahead, sir.

Yes, for sure. Through you, Mr. Chair, so that is correct. There’s 57 trees currently on site.

Only seven of those are being removed. So basically 12% of trees on site are being removed. They’re planting 41 new trees of various sizes and types along the property boundaries and internal to the site. And then as well as that they’re planting the, sorry, just lost my number there.

They’re planting 104 trees, we planted as the hedges to help provide those green and qualities. So they are adding 314 new plantings on site. So that includes the trees being planted, the trees being retained as well as other shrubberies. Thank you for that.

I know the privacy was a very important conversation in the community with this infill development. And I really, if I may, Mr. Chair, just make my comments now. I know this is a site plan participation meeting where staff are going to be taking these comments and taking them into account as they continue the site plan application.

And this was a very big concern in the community, this development. And I wanna thank the builder for sort of facilitating an open house and having that conversation with the community a few months ago to further answer the concerns in the community. And I wanna thank the builder for that. It’s important to the community, given that the changes that are about to happen.

The tree preservation plan is quite full. I really support the tree preservation plan as well as the deep wild storage system that will be going in and the amenity space as well. These were things coming out of the last planning committee to make sure that these would be addressed through the site plan application. So I’m really glad to see that.

I know some more work still needs to be done around the snow storage, how that’s gonna look like if it will be kept on the property or if it will be removed. Those conversations are going to continue. So I just wanna thank the public for coming out and for the builder to continue working and addressing the concerns in the community. And with that, those are my comments.

All right. Perhaps I should get someone to move the recommendation at this point, if someone’s prepared to do that, Councillor Hopkins is prepared to do that. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. So we’ll now be commenting on that motion.

Councillor Hillier. Thank you. Yes, I’m just looking at the map, but I’m curious about parking. It says it’s parking for three visitor cars.

And then I’m looking at the roads rental. We got Byron baseline road. You can’t park on that road. And Griffiths around the corner is a fairly busy one.

Where would overflow park be? There’s only three for 28 units. Staff, go ahead. Thank you through you, Mr.

Chair. So under the site plan control by-law, we only require one visitor space for every 10 units. So they do meet the standards of the site plan control by-law. Any other parking that happens offsite, it would be a by-law enforcement issue if they’re parked illegally.

I see that coming forward. I’m sorry? I see that problem coming going forward with this. Thanks.

Any further comments or questions? We have the staff recommendation moved and seconded. So I will call on the vote. Yes.

Through Mr. Mayor. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. The next matter moving onto items for direction, I’m sorry, in 4.1 is a request for delegation status with regard to 183 and 197 and street.

Just for the help of the committee, this was a matter that was referred by council to a future meeting to determine, I think both the application and the heritage status. However, we have two delegations tonight. First is Ms. Velastro has asked to speak to the committee and also, George developments has also now requested delegation status.

So we have two requests for delegation status. Normally as the committee knows, we refer them to the next meeting of the committee, but I’m in committee’s hands. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Through you to our clerks, perhaps, on this one. Given that a prior committee has already referred, both the planning application and the heritage consideration on this to come back together at a future date. And that has not happened yet.

Is it procedurally in order for us to be hearing delegations on a matter that’s already been referred to a future meeting or would it be procedurally appropriate to refer these to the meeting when the application comes back because with the previous direction from committee, I just feel like we would need reconsideration to change that situation. Clerk, I’ll look for your advice on this. Through you, Mr. Chair, either one would be procedurally appropriate.

You’re certainly free to hear the delegation and we’ll refer that information to when the staff reports come forward or you can refer it to the meeting when the staff reports come forward. Either way, I’m just looking at the recommendation with respect to this and A part was the comments received from the public be received. It’s another one, too. And that development services staff be directed to take the necessary arrangements to hold a public participation meeting regarding this.

That was from March 24, 2020. And on November 24, 2020, the motion was with respect to the application for 183 and 197 and was that clause from the latch report, we referred to civic administration. The resource known as 197 and St. B designated.

And this is the motion from lodge, correct? Actually, maybe I’ll let Ms. Liz be respond ‘cause she’s more familiar with this file as to what happened with the November 2020 resolution. I think what we’re looking clarity on is first of all, we’re both matters referred by council ultimately to one meeting, both the planning application and the heritage designation.

In other words, are they both referred to the same meeting? And then following on that, if the delegation tonight is regard to making that a determination on heritage status tonight, which I think it may be, is that appropriate? So that’s, I think there’s two issues there. Am I right, Councilor Lewis or am I?

I do have a recollection of the council discussion being about whether we would send both matters to be determined together. Maybe I’m wrong then. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you.

Yes, you can refer, so sorry. Both the heritage latch recommendation and this staff, the planning application, we’re referred back to staff. So I think then at least the next matter, can we make a decision on one of those matters separately tonight or is Councilor would just decided that they’re going to come back together? The clerk maybe could tell.

I think that’s what Councilor Lewis is getting. Through Mr. Chair, you can certainly hear the delegations. I would not recommend you make a decision until you’ve heard both matters together.

But you can certainly hear the delegations we will record it as part of the record. And those comments would be considered when staff is reporting back on both. Or you can refer everything to when those reports come back. So if the people making the delegation would have to understand that there will be no decision tonight, but their delegation would be referred to that meeting, or they can just subject to what they want to do, they could just say, well, we’ll make those delegations at the meeting when it comes back to planning.

Those are our two avenues. I take it, Councilor Lewis, does that help? I can advise the delegates of that and maybe that may influence their opinion. So having heard that response, Mr.

Chair, I’m certainly willing to give you the leeway to advise the delegates of that. My, I’ll tell you that it is my intention after you advise the delegates of that, that we refer these both to the future meeting to come back with the staff report. Respectfully, I don’t think that we should be dealing with these in bits and pieces. I think we should be dealing with them comprehensively when both the staff report on the heritage and the planning development application come forward together.

I need to say anything then, if you’re gonna bring that motion, that may just determine it at an end. So go ahead and if you wanna make a motion and we’ll see if you have a seconder and then I’ll invite the other members of the committee to speak to that issue. Okay, so with respect, Mr. Chair, I am going to make that motion that this item, both these delegation requests be referred to a future meeting of the planning and environment committee to coincide with the staff report coming back on the matter as are already referred to council.

We’ll look to see if there’s a seconder on that and then I’d just offer one more comment after that. All right. I see Councilor Hill here’s prepared to second that. All right, so that motion is on the floor.

And just so the people who are delegates are understanding, it’s not to receive your delegation, it’s merely to refer those delegations to the planning meeting where both matters have been ordered by council to be heard together. So that’s already been decided by council. So go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So the reason behind this is very simple. This wasn’t an item on our agenda tonight from staff. This came from a public request from an individual, essentially asking us to make a decision tonight, which would not be appropriate in my view.

But beyond that, because it wasn’t on our agenda as a staff report, no other members of the public are here to give their thoughts because there isn’t a staff report yet. And I am concerned that we would be really setting a precedent to start hearing delegations on planning matters anytime somebody didn’t agree necessarily with how a development was proceeding before the staff report has come to us. And staff reports do provide an opportunity. We’ve just gone through a number of public participation meetings tonight.

There’s an appropriate time for delegations to come and share their concerns with us. But I think that it needs to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner with the staff report. And that’s why I think tonight it’s best to refer this to that future meeting. Okay.

Further comments on the motions, which would include comments on the delegations, obviously, or Mayor Holner. Well, Chair, you’ve rightly indicated earlier that there probably isn’t a public participation meeting. I have not supported, but I’m moved by the comments of both Clerk and Councillor Lewis with respect to right place, right time. And I’m mindful of tuning our food twice and your version that this goes to the appropriate.

The wind is getting in the way of the velocity work. And my hair too, Chair. No, I was not going to, I would never comment on your hair, but we can’t hear you clearly. So I think so.

Let me try this again then and briefly. Typically, I would support PPMs as you indicated, because I think the more output we have from the community, especially when we’ve got two sides of the argument. I think, and I’m not sure the argument of this issue, certainly being put forward. But I think Councillor Lewis makes some great points.

And I prepared to support and second his motion to refer this at the appropriate time with the staff report. Thank you. Thank you for any further discussion. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins, did you?

Yeah, go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, to the motion on the floor, I would like just some clarification here.

For, I got a couple of questions. Do we, I understand there’s two delegation requests here. Question number one, just, and if they are both present to tonight to do the delegation request. Well, I’m assuming they are.

I haven’t spoken to them yet. Are both the delegates here? Yes. So it’s Ms.

Velastro who initially made the delegation and she provided a substance of that delegation. And then York Development’s in response has requested delegation status and they provided a letter which is on the agenda. So far, the clerk has advised me as chair that we should not be making a decision on one matter and not both because Council specifically directed that they both be heard together. So it would be inappropriate for us to now try to make a decision on one.

So either way, even if the delegations will be heard, it’s just a matter of whether they’re heard tonight or at that actual meeting where decisions are made. That’s where we are. Thank you. You’re welcome.

Lesser number two. We do, we can just receive the delegations. We do not have to make any decisions here. That’s my understanding of delegation requests.

There’s, it’s not imperative that we make decisions. And question number three, there will there be a public participation meeting when this application comes back to the planning? Yeah, so with regard to the second question, you’re quite right. We could hear them tonight, just hear them and refer them, the substance of them to the meeting.

It’s just, Councilor Lewis has indicated, I think he prefers, he thinks the better approach is to hear them at the actual meeting. When this matter comes back to planning, will there be an actual public participation meeting or is it just a meeting where you would get delegation status? Through you, Mr. Chair, it would depend on how different the recommendation is or the application is from what was originally at the public participation meeting.

Normally I would recommend a planning staff if it’s a length of time, that likely they should have another public participation meeting, but I haven’t seen the report, perhaps planning staff could have thought. Yeah, maybe I might ask staff, ‘cause I think the council raises a good point as to whether we will actually be having a public participation meeting when this matter returns. And I don’t even know if they can give us an idea when it’s returning. Mr.

Chair, it’s Michael Thomasine speaking here. And we were anticipating a revised application to be submitted by the applicant. And in fact, we’re still anticipating that. It just hasn’t materialized yet.

But as soon as we do and we review the application, we certainly will bring it back for a public participation meeting. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Thomasine. It’s very, very helpful.

So it seems to me, and not to assume anything, that the people are gonna have the right to speak when this matter comes back, whether they’re doing it as delegates or members of the public. So it’s sort of the same situation. But I’m sorry, Councillor Hopkins, I’ll let you continue. Yeah, and thank you for that clarification.

That really is helpful. To me, if for me, I am quite comfortable receiving both delegations tonight. If they’re here, all we’re doing is receiving their comments. There’ll be further opportunities to make comments when this application comes back to us.

So I won’t be supporting the motion. Thank you. Further comments on the motion? Go ahead, Councillor Layman.

My understanding is that in a PPM, people have one chance to speak. Is that correct, Clerk, on a proposal before committee? Through you, Mr. Chair, yes.

At the public participation meeting, they’re only speak once. They can certainly submit communication subsequent to that before council makes a decision as well, but at the meeting itself, it’s only once. So my concern here is that we’re circumventing that idea. Everyone gets one chance to speak.

I understand the delegation here would like to speak. And then I’m assuming the delegation could speak again at a future PPM. And I don’t think that’s right. I think everyone should be.

It should be a fair process where everyone plays under the same rules. So I think it’s more appropriate to have this delegation heard at that appropriate time. Anything further on the motion of Councillor, Lewis, there being nothing I will call the vote. And that’s to refer the delegations to the future public participation meeting on both matters.

Chair, yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one. And as item 4.2, which is the fifth report of the advised requirement.

And if you look at that report, there is a request from the committee that the Municipal Council make a request with the Government of Ontario to place an interim cap on greenhouse gases and some other issues. And staff has made a request that this matter be referred back to them to determine how it aligns with our climate emergency action plan and report back. But I should mention that this was referred by a prior planning and environment committee for the same thing on November 30th of 2020. So I think before we refer back again, we will hear from staff.

And I don’t know whether Mr. Stanford is here or someone else to speak on it. I think they were aware we were going to be dealing with this matter. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And yes, Jay Stanford is here tonight to address any comments. But as you indicated, this came before PEC last November. At that time, it was put on the deferred matters list with the understanding that it was going to refer to the climate emergency action plan, which it still sits.

In May, there was an update to the deferred matters and it actually came off your list. And at that time, it was indicated that the independent electricity system operators organization, which is an independent group in Ontario, I had launched a consultation process regarding what do we do with the future of natural gas in this province. That consultation process is underway right now and it is a comprehensive one. It is an Ontario wide process.

The city will be participating in webinars to learn more and upcoming responses will be provided to that particular process. So there’s actually a couple things underway right now. So Mr. Chair, if I may, that being just redirected back to staff would be, in our opinion, the appropriate place ‘cause that’s where it currently sits right now.

Thank you very much and I can confirm, Mr. Stanford, you’re right most of the time. And in this case, you are, I was able to confirm today that that’s quite correct. There’s a report being prepared by this independent energy body to come back on just this.

So I think that’s at least accurate. So what we’re looking at, and that’s the reason that we’re referring it to staff, but I’m gonna turn it over to council and see if that’s the appropriate course of our, or committee to see if that’s the appropriate step you wish to take. Mayor Holden. Thanks very much, sir.

I think it’s absolutely the appropriate step to take. And I would tell you that you’re a little bit wrong, the only and so far as I believe that. We’re not hearing you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mayor, we’re having some challenge hearing you. I know you’ve been thrown out of your home. It’s tough for you, but we’re hoping to hear it.

Hear me a little bit better now, Chair. We can, and I’m pulling your leg, of course. Well, with due respect to the Chair, personally, I support what Mr. Stanford has said.

I would also say that you’re somewhat wrong, but you’re never wrong. In so far as I think that Mr. Stanford always gives solid, strong advice on issues around climate change and the environment. And I totally appreciate his contribution to our city.

Here’s my broad comment. See, so he’s complimented both me and now he’s complimenting you, Mr. Stanford. So he’s in good form tonight.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr.

Stanford, for being here. I know when this was sent back, we never know what’s happening, what happens to it. And now it’s back again, and we’re referring it. So I do appreciate your comments.

And the consultation process that’s going on is really, really important. So I’m glad to hear staff. It’s going to be part of those webinars and hopefully coming back to us with the report. Is there a timeline that we can expect this next report coming back, or do we know, and where will it be going?

I know it’s not gonna be coming back to planning, but if we can have a better understanding of the process when it comes to our climate change emergency action plan. All right, so are you asking when the emergency action plan will be coming back, or this particular— Yeah, I just go swimming. It’s going back on the list. And then when can we expect, and what committee can we expect the climate emergency action plan going to?

Okay, Mr. Stanford. Thank you, and through the Chair, it is our understanding at this point in time, it’ll be coming back to SPPC, and the rationale for that is that our two previous reports have gone that particular route. Before any final decision is made on that matter, though, we will be consulting with the City Clerk to make sure it does land with the most appropriate committee, but that is our current intention, but that could be subject to change.

For a date, it will be later this fall, 2021, as per our recent report. But if anything comes up on this particular consultation that’s out there right now, we would come forward earlier on a single matter, but our preference is always to bring forward a very comprehensive look at a variety of options to make sure that Council has all the information before a decision is made. All right. If I may, I just want to, Mr.

Stanford, for that information, I know the public is interested in where this goes. The consultation process, one more question. How long is that going to continue for? Mr.

Stanford, do you have any idea of that? According to the timeline on the website, it will go into the fall as well. What we don’t know will be, it’s going to be a very technical undertaking. It might lead actually into a number of different phases, and if that’s the case, then we will bring back information on where we sit in that phase.

As you’ve heard, dealing with any fossil fuel, in particular, natural gas is paramount to the future of Ontario for climate change, but it is equally important too that we’re looking at it from an economical perspective and an economy perspective. And of course, the whole grid is based on a variety of energy sources right now, and we have to make sure as the future goes forward, we hear from the experts of how that grid will maintain the economy here in Ontario. Anything further? So do we have anything prepared to refer 2.1 back to staff?

All right, we’re going to get that up, so then we will receive the rest of the report, all right? We get that up, and I’ll just need some of the move and seconded, Mayor Holder. No, we can’t. You might be happy.

There we go. Is that true? Seconded by Councillor Lewis. So it’s moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Lewis, and it should be where we’re going to see this, is it up?

So it’s any further comments on where we’re referring to one matter back, and I’ll call the vote. We have a vote, yes, they’re chair. Thank you. - Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Next matter is item 40 report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage. Just somebody has any questions. I just need to receive and file that report.

Move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any comments? No, I’ll call the vote. I’ll vote, yes, chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Both, the motion carries six to zero.

There are no business, so I just need a motion for adjournment. Oh, that’s on the added list. I’m sorry, my apologies. This is my second mistake of the night.

Please keep track. I thought I was going to get out of here with one. So we just need someone to move receipt and filing the fifth report of the environmental and ecological planning advisory committee. Move by Councillor Layman, seconded by Mayor Holder.

There’s nothing further, I will call the vote. Vote, yes, chair. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

For adjournment, and we’re going to do this by hand. Move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. All in favor, raise your hands. It’s unanimous.

Thank you very much. Great meeting everyone, take care. We will see you at SPPC on Wednesday. Great job, Chair Mayor.