Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

July 26, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.2 to 2.5, inclusive, 2.7 to 2.9, inclusive, 2.11 and 2.12 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   3343 Morgan Avenue - Removal of Holding Provisions

2021-07-26 SR 3343 Morgan Avenue

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Old Oak Properties, relating to the property located at 3343 Morgan Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R5/R6/R7/R10 (hh-54h-71*R5-7/R6-5/R7.D100.H45/R10-3.H45) Zone TO a Residential R5/R6/R7/R10 (R5-7/R6-5/R7.D100.H45/R10-3.H45) Zone to remove the “h”, ‘h-54” and “h-71” holding provisions.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.3   1750 Finley Crescent - Exemption from Part-Lot Control

2021-07-26 SR 1750 Finley Crescent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 101, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)        pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 101, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings;

b)        the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 101, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xiv)        in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1750 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.4   1820 Finley Crescent - Exemption from Part-Lot Control

2021-07-26 SR 1820 Finley Crescent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 99, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)        pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 99, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings;

b)        the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 99, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xiv)       in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1820 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.5   1790 Finley Crescent - Exemption from Part-Lot Control

2021-07-26 SR 1790 Finley Crescent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., to exempt Block 100, Plan 33M-733 from Part-Lot Control:

a)        pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 100, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-4(4)) which permits street townhouse dwellings;

b)        the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 100, Plan 33M-733 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xiv)      in accordance with condition v), the applicant provide servicing drawings of municipal servicing to each of the blocks created within 1790 Finley Crescent to indicate that all municipal servicing can be provide to each property/block created without conflict. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.7   1738, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road - Phases 1 and 2 Special Provisions

2021-07-26 SR 1738, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

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 Thames Village Joint Venture Corporation, for the subdivision of lands located at 1738, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road, north side, south of the Thames River, legally described as Part of Lots 7 & 8, Concession 1; Part of Lot 7, Broken Front Concession “B”; Part of the Road Allowance Between Lots 6 & 7, Broken Front Concession “B” and Concession 1 (Closed by Unregistered By-law 276, dated April, 1875) (Geographic Township of Westminster); all of Lot 1 and Part of Lot 6, and all of the one foot reserve abutting Bobolink Lane Registered Plan No. 747 in the City of London, County of Middlesex:

a)        the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Thames Village Joint Venture Corporation for the Thames Village Joint Venture Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2 (39T-17502) appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)        the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

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

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

Motion Passed

2.8   613 and 629 Sovereign Road - Deeming By-law

2021-07-26 SR 613 and 629 Sovereign Road Deeming By-law

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Spriet Associates London Limited, relating to the properties located at 613 and 629 Sovereign Road:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to deem Lot 26 and Lot 27, Registered Plan No. 33M-251, save and except part of Lot 27, Registered Plan No. 33M-251 designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-17747, City of London, County of Middlesex, not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;

b)        the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the by-law passing and undertake registration of the Deeming By-law, in accordance with the provisions in subsections 50(28) and 50(29) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13; and,

c)        the applicant BE REQUIRED to pay for any costs incurred to register the deeming by-law at the Land Registry Office. 2021-D12)

Motion Passed

2.9   2120 Kains Road

2021-07-26 SR 2120 Kains Road

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, to exempt the following lands from Part Lot Control:

a)    pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021, to exempt part of Block 6 on Registered Plan 33M-429, more accurately described as Parts 3 to 6, inclusive, on Plan 33R-19849, from the Part Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; and,

b)    the applicant BE ADVISED that the cost of registration of the above-noted By-law is to be borne by the applicant, in accordance with City policy. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.11   1284 Sunningdale Road West - Foxhollow North Kent Phase 3C - Removal of Holding Provisions h and h-100

2021-07-26 SR 1284 Sunningdale Road West

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 1284 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-3(8)) Zone, a Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100R4-6(14)) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (hh-100R1-3) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-3(8)) Zone, a Residential Special Provision R4 (R4-6(14)) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.12   50 Southbridge Drive - Removal of Holding Provisions h, h-100 and h-198

2021-07-26 SR 50 Southbridge Drive

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 50 Southbridge Drive, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R5 (hh-100h-198R5-4(22)) and a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-100h-198R6-5(50)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R5 (R5-4(22)) and a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(50)) to remove the h, h-100 and h-198 holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.1   Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan - Terms of Reference

2021-06-26-SR-Oxford-Wonderland-Secondary-Plan-Terms-of-Reference

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Terms of Reference for the Oxford Wonderland Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE ENDORSED. (2021-D08)

Motion Failed (1 to 5)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to move 2.6 and 2.13 together

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.6   704 and 706 Boler Road 

2021-07-26 SR 704 and 706 Boler Road

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

That Items 2.6 and 2.13 BE APPROVED.

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to a portion of the property located at 704 and 706 Boler Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h*R6-1(18)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-1(18)) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision. (2021-D09)

2.13   704, 706 and 720 Boler Road - Removal of Holding Provision “h”

2021-07-26 SR 704 706 and 720 Boler Road

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the properties located at 704, 706 and 720 Boler Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (h*R1-9(8)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-9(8)) Zone to remove the “h” holding provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.10   Proclamation of Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 385/21, and draft Ontario Heritage Toolkit

2021-07-26 SR PEC OHA Amendments

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the staff report dated July 26, 2021 entitled “Proclamation of Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 385/21, and draft Ontario Heritage Toolkit” BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the communication dated July 23, 2021 from A.M. Valastro, 133 John Street, was received; it being further noted that the request for delegation status was withdrawn. (2021-L11)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   450 Wharncliffe Road South

2021-07-26 SR PEC OZ-9344 450 Wharncliffe Road South

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Plaza Retail Reit and The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 450 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to DELETE policy Section 4.6.7 iii) – “Specific Service Commerical Areas- Wharncliffe Road South, between Devonshire and Baseline and 425 Wharncliffe Road South”;

b)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a policy to Section 4.4.2.11 – “Specific Service Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridors- Wharncliffe Road South, between Devonshire Avenue and Baseline Road West and 425 Wharncliffe Road South” to to provide for an expanded range of uses, including automobile sales and service establishment uses to the property located at 425 Wharncliffe Road South; and,

c)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial (HS2) Zone TO a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS2 (*) Zone to permit the additional uses of Office, Medical/Dental Office, Clinic, Laboratory, Retail Store and Liquor, Beer and Wine Store;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which promotes an appropriate range and mix of uses in a settlement area;

  •    the recommended uses conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, and City Building, and will facilitate a wider range of uses in an existing building in the Urban Corridor Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to, Chapter 4 – Policies for Specific Service Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridors, which allows Council to apply specific policies where the change in land use is site specific and located in an Auto-Oriented Corridor where Council wishes to maintain the existing land use designation while allowing for a site-specific uses; and,

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment implements an appropriate use and intensity for the site which is compatible with the surrounding area. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   360 Callaway Road - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21504)

2021-07-26 SR 360 Callaway Road

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Wastell Development Inc., relating to the property located at 360 Callaway Road:

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 360 Callaway Road; and,

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 360 Callaway Road;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated July 22, 2021, from E. Abbott, 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 this application for the following reasons:

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   355 Middleton Avenue - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21509)

2021-07-26 SR 355 Middleton Avenue

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue:

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 355 Middleton Avenue; and,

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue;

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

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

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site. (2021-D12)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   915 Upperpoint Avenue - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21508)

2021-07-26 SR 915 Upperpoint Avenue

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue:

a)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue;

b)        the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 355 Middleton Avenue:

i)         a request for the installation of a barrier or vegetation;

ii)        the increase in traffic and the speed of the traffic;

iii)       the dirt and dust from the ongoing construction to the north of the proposed development;

iv)       the vibration from the excavation; and,

v)        the accumulation of garbage from the ongoing construction;

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

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

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to Our Tools, Key Directions, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential Designation and will implement an appropriate form of residential development for the site. (2021-D12)

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 A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.5   414-418 Old Wonderland Road (Z-9293)

2021-07-26 SR 414-418 Old Wonderland Road

414-418 Old Wonderland OZ-9293 (Revised By-law)

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.5

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Four Fourteen Inc. relating to the property located at 414-418 Old Wonderland Road:

a)        the proposed, revised, attached by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone and an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a to a holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-5*R5-7(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)         board on board fencing along the east, north and south property boundaries that not only exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law but also has screening/privacy qualities;

ii)        ensure naturalization with feature restoration and compensation is required to be completed by the landowner in accordance with the mitigation measures in the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment and City Ecologist;

iii)       ensure that in the development agreement it is clear that the restoration and compensation areas are to be protected in a natural state and not manicured; and,

iv)       a small berm should be created along the edges of the storage area to direct flows back to the road surface and not towards the pond feature to the north; and,

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

it being pointed out that 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 this application for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

  •    the subject lands represent an appropriate location for intensification in the form of townhouses, at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighbourhood. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.6   400 Southdale Road East (OZ-9261)

2021-07-26 SR - 400 Southdale Road East - OZ-9261

400 Southdale Road East - OZ-9261 (Revised By-law)

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.6

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Manager, Planning Implementation, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by LJM Developments, relating to the property located at 400 Southdale Road East:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” that would modify the ‘Neighbourhood Commercial Node’ designation to permit residential units on the ground floor and an increased density of 462 units per hectare on the subject lands located at 400 Southdale Road East;

b)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend The London Plan to create a special policy area in the Neighbourhoods Place Type at 400 Southdale Road East to permit an apartment building with residential uses on the ground floor, a height of 7-storeys (29.2m including the mechanical penthouse) and a density of 462 units per hectare and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan;

c)        the proposed revised, attached, by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Service Station (SS2) Zone TO holding Residential R9 (h-5R9-1B-  ) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process to be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process:

i)         enhanced provision of boundary landscaping and board on board fencing along boundaries that not only exceed the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law but also has screening/privacy qualities;

ii)        consideration of more surface parking for visitors; and,

iii)       address an existing license agreement and the existing private sanitary sewer and PDC that bisects the subject property that services adjacent lands, namely servicing in favor of 456 Southdale Road East, through updates to the Sanitary Study and through detailed design that ensures this existing service in favour of the adjacent lands will be maintained or rerouted and uninterrupted connecting to the municipal sewer on Dundalk.  A clause in the future development agreement will be included regarding an easement agreement between 400 Southdale Road East and 456 Southdale Road East and all servicing details are to be included in the engineering site servicing drawings;

d)        the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 7-storeys with mechanical penthouse, 181 dwelling units and a maximum density of 462 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

A)    Exceptional Building Design

the building design shown in the various illustrations contained in Schedule “1” of the amending by-law is being bonused for features which serve to support the City’s objectives of promoting a high standard of design;

i)        the building oriented to the corner of Southdale Road East and Dundalk Street providing a well-defined built edge and creating a positive public interface and human scale at street level;

ii)       the inclusion of building step backs, from 7-storeys to 6-storeys and 5-storeys with a variety of building materials and building articulation to break up the massing of the building; and,

iii)       purpose-designed amenity space on top of the apartment building and/or parking structure;

B)    Underground Parking

C)    Provision of Affordable Housing by requiring that LJM Developments enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the City of London (“the City”) to facilitate the transfer of ownership at no cost of four (4) new one-bedroom condominium units constructed within the development for the purposes of affordable housing, in a form prescribed by the City;

it being noted that a future development agreement will provide for the four new one-bedroom units and will include the following through further agreements as necessary:

  •    assurances of the specific location, size, fixtures, and features of the bonus units are defined as to the City’s satisfaction. This includes any common and general attributes, (such as storage lockers, parking, or other building resident amenities) for each bonus unit;

  •    a purchase agreement, inclusive of securities as applicable, reflecting the process for the no-cost transfer of the 4 new one-bedroom units and any associated services and features upon condominium plan registration, in a form satisfactory to the City; and,

  •    confirmation that the associated condominium declaration and by-laws shall in no way limit the use and function of the units for affordable rental housing in accordance with applicable residential rental laws;

it is further recognized that, upon ownership, the City will retain and maintain the units within the function and business of affordable rental housing as managed through the City’s Housing Stability Services. The City, as owner, would therefore be required to address costs associated with condominium and other standard fees. These factors have been considered within the bonus provisions and will be subject to separate reporting and details;

d)        pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the same range of uses for which public notification has been given albeit at a lower intensity;

it being noted 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 this application for the following reasons:

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

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

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan and 1989 Official Plan upon approval of the recommended amendment.

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of four (4)affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   180-186 Commissioners Road West 

2021-07-26 SR - 180-186 Commissioners Rd W O-9318 Z-9317 (Redacted) (002)

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.7

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 180 Commissioners Road Inc., relating to the property located at 180 – 186 Commissioners Road West:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan by ADDING a policy to Section 3.5. – Policies for Specific Residential Areas to permit a maximum residential density of 105 units per hectare to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Neighbourhood Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)        the provision of a built form that is located along both the Commissioners Road West and Viscount Road frontages, with units oriented to the street;

ii)        the provision of a building design for both street-facing facades that includes a high level of architectural detail and a variety of materials and articulation; individual front door style entrances to ground floor units; amenity spaces for individual units at ground level that create a pedestrian-oriented streetscape; and direct walkway connections from ground floor units to the public sidewalk;

iii)        the provision of an appropriately sized common outdoor amenity area for residents;

iv)        the provision of enhanced landscaping in the exterior side yard along Viscount Road, including consideration of such items as a seat wall, arbour, masonry columns and planting or other enhanced features;

v)        the provision of mitigation measures to address privacy issues/conflicts between grade-related patios and the public realm on Commissioners Road West, and between grade-related patios and the surface parking area, exploring opportunities for creating grade separation to better preserve the amenity of the porches/patios and the usability of those spaces for residents;

vi)       the provision of privacy fencing along the east and south property boundaries, where possible when co-ordinated with any tree retention on or adjacent to the property lines, noting the retention of existing trees may be less desirable than the provision of privacy fencing in combination with new enhanced landscaping for screening;

vii)      the provision of enhanced, robust landscaping along the east and south property boundaries for screening, taking into account possible compensation for trees removed from the site prior to the preparation of the Tree Preservation Report; discussions between the applicant and the neighbouring property owners; and the submission of a final Tree Preservation Report;

viii)      the location and design of snow storage areas to retain snow-melt on site;

ix)        possible external updates/modifications on Viscount Road, which may include a pavement marking exercise to implement a left turn lane into the site, and/or signal timing revisions;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation and the criteria for Policies for Specific Areas which allow Council to address development opportunities through specific policies that provide additional guidance to the general Multi-family, Medium Density Residential policies; and,

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.8   1047-1055 Dearness Drive

2021-07-26 SR - 1047-1055 Dearness Dr O-9288 Z-9289 PEC - Redacted

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.8

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Leo, Maria and Christine Viglianti relating to the property located at 1047 – 1055 Dearness Drive:

a)        the City Solicitor BE REQUESTED to provide a briefing to the Municipal Council at their meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 with respect to the potential impacts of the Veterans Land Act on the above-noted application; and,

b)        consideration of the application BE REFERRED to the same above-noted Municipal Council meeting;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.9   Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (OZ-9367)

2021-07-26 SR Medway Valley ESA Part A

2021-07-26 SR Medway Valley ESA Part B

2021-07-26 SR Medway Valley ESA Part C

2021-07-26 SR Medway Valley ESA Part D

2021-07-26 SR Medway Valley ESA Part E

2021-07-26 Public Comments 3.9

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan:

a)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to adopt the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan, appended to the aforementioned staff report, in accordance with London Plan policy 1421;

b)        that NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to implementing the Green Acres Drive connection to the Medway Valley trail and pathway system at this time;

c)        the portion of the pathway and trail system from Gloucester Road (Access A11) to its connection with the pathway in the Valley shown on “Appendix B” of the Medway Valley Heritage Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan BE DEFERRED to be considered at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee following further consultation and review with the adjacent neighbours, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee:

d)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021  as Appendix ‘E’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the London Plan:

i)         change Policy 1719_11 FROM Medway Valley Heritage Forest Site Planning Study TO Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan;

ii)        change the Green Space Place Type and Neighbourhoods Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above; and,

iii)       change the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area on Map 5 – Natural Heritage, in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above:

It being noted that The London Plan Map 1 will come into full force and effect concurrent with Map 1 of the London Plan;

e)        the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 26, 2021  as Appendix ’F’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 10, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to:

i)         change the Low Density Residential, Multi-family Medium Density Residential, Regional Facility, and Open Space land use designations on Schedule “A”, Land Use in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above; and,

ii)        change the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area on Schedule “B1”, Natural Heritage Features, in conformity with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan adopted above; and,

iii)        change Policy 19.2.2. ii) to add the Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan to the list of guideline documents; and,

f)         the members of Accessibility Advisory Committee, Environmental Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, UTRCA and local First Nations Communities BE THANKED for their work in the review and comments on the Sustainable Trail Concept Plan;

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

●    a communication dated July 26, 2021 from G. and S. Sinker, 1597 Gloucester Road;

●    the staff presentation; and,

●    revised pages of the maps included in the staff report;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individuals indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made oral submissions regarding these matters.   (2021-E18/E20)

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 A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve a new part b), which reads as follows:

b)       that NO ACTION BE TAKEN with respect to implementing the Green Acres Drive connection to the Medway Valley trail and pathway system at this time;

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   5th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-06-23 TFAC Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 5th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 23, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   7th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-07-14 LACH Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on July 14, 2021:

a)        the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated June 16, 2021, from C. Maton, Senior Planner, with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties located at 551-555 Waterloo Street:

i)         C. Maton, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage is satisfied with the research, assessment and conclusions of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) included with the above-noted Notice of Planning Application and is in support of this development; and,

ii)         the above-noted Notice of Planning Application BE RECEIVED;

b)        on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 14, 2021, related to an application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to alter the heritage designated property located at 329-331 Richmond Street, located within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District:

i)         the alterations BE PERMITTED, as submitted, with the following terms and conditions:

  •    the cast iron columns be braced and protected in situ, as described in the Conservation Plan (Cornerstone Architecture and VanBoxmeer & Stranges, dated June 1, 2021), as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

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

ii)        direction BE GIVEN to the Site Plan Approval Authority to include a clause regarding the following within the Development Agreement (DA) For the Site Plan Approval:

  •    alterations to the property shall conform to the Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP21-049-L); and,

the approach, methods, and process of the in situ conservation of the cast iron columns and arched entryway feature of the property at 329 Richmond Street, before, during, and after construction, shall conform to the Conservation Plan (Cornerstone Architecture and VanBoxmeer & Stranges, dated June 1, 2021), appended to the Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

c)        clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, 2.7, 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:03 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 (6 hours, 12 minutes)

[4:52] Okay, the meeting’s gonna start in four minutes, so if people could join us, that would be great. I will be starting on time. Now four o’clock, so I’m gonna call the meeting to order.

[8:52] Before we start, I wanna say that the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pack@london.ca. First matter is to see if there are any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Being none, I will move on to the consent items.

[9:27] We are going to be polling. Councillor Layman asks for item 2.1 to be pulled. Hopefully he’s going to join us. And then 2.6 to 10 and 2.13, or does anybody wish any other matters to be pulled? Let’s get a mover and seconder for the rest of the matters, and then we’ll ask for comments on those. Move by Councillor Hillyer. Need a seconder by Councillor Lewis in comments on the matters that have not been pulled as of yet. Being no comments, then I will call the question on the items other than 2.1, 2.6, 2.10, and 2.13.

[10:11] I’m just logging, getting my E-Scribe logged in, so I’ll vote yay to this one. Thank you. Chair, I’ve logged in to E-Scribe, but I don’t see the vote coming up, so I’ll vote yay. Yeah, it hasn’t come up for any of us yet, so perhaps it will come up for you. We’ll see, if not, I’ll note your vote. I got it.

[10:44] I don’t, you’re ahead of me. I don’t have it, but I’ll vote yay. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. All right, so the first item has to be pulled as 2.1, Councillor Layman, you wanted to speak to this matter. Yeah, thank you, Chair. You know, as we transit stations, and further going and planning, I guess I’m having trouble getting a handle of where we’re at.

[11:33] So through you, Chair, to staff, the transit stations in the London Plan were defined around, it appears, the five legs of BRT. Why would we be discussing a transit station at this particular location when Council did not approve the West leg of BRT? Thank you, staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Mr. Rare speaking.

[12:11] I’ll start and then maybe Ms. O’Hagan can speak to some specifics. The transit village place types are approved place types in the London Plan, and they are the land use designation for four areas that are at the ends of the RT system in the city, and it also includes the downtown. So the policy basis for each of these areas is actually already in the London Plan and there are policies for it. The purpose of the secondary plan is to come up with more refined policies that would guide the future development within these areas and set forth any special policies, design considerations, land use mix as those kinds of things, the items that you would normally look at through a secondary plan.

[12:58] With respect to Council’s not having yet approved that leg of the RT system, while that leg of the system may not yet be funded, that full system is still approved as part of the environmental assessment and as I said, the city structure plan is still based upon that system being implemented at some point in the future. The other point is that these space types speak to a broad range of uses that will be supported by transit.

[13:32] So even if the ultimate decision on the mode that timing or the type of rapid transit that might exist in the future, these areas would still be centers of the highest level of transit activity, even if it is for the near-term and the mid-term conventional transit activity. So they’re gonna be highly served by the transit system. They are years that are planned for high-intensity development, both residential and non-residential forms of development and the policy basis for those and the structure of those is actually part of the approved city’s official plan.

[14:14] Councillor Layton. Thank you. So can I ask for your new chair to staff, does that preclude high-density development of the other nodes along Wonderland, the Wonderland of Fanshawe and farther south? Thank you, through the chair. The city’s official plan is built on a system of varying levels of intensity based on the place types or the street typologies. So as I said, there are four transit villages in the downtown, which are identified as the highest order and the highest areas of development.

[14:49] And then there are all of the corridors, not only the transit corridors, but the corridors that we refer to as the urban corridors and all of those corridors that include the major arterials are intended for higher intensity levels of use. And they’re identified in the policies as supporting higher levels of intensity along those corridors. Go ahead, Councillor Layton. Thank you. ‘Cause my concern is this, as London has actually grown in the Northwest, the amount of traffic right now, I believe actually Oxford Wonderland is the busiest intersection now in the city.

[15:31] The amount of traffic that’s going to be going south on Wonderland from the North is dramatic and will only increase. And then from the West end, as not only just from within the city, but outside the city, my concern is that we’re creating a bottleneck at this corner. And I don’t see how a transit village is addressing that concern. In fact, my concern is that it’s only gonna make that worse. I see what happened at Richmond and Fanshawe, that left hand turn lane there, is finally being addressed.

[16:08] Turns that at Oxford and Wonderland are a constant source of concern amongst my constituents. And I don’t see how this transit village, regardless if it’s BRT or whatever, is addressing that. I think it’s only gonna make it worse. And I think it’s not spreading the load out, especially in this day, what we’re looking at post COVID, mass anything is being held up for question.

[16:45] So I’m not comfortable moving along this path until we have a better idea of where transit’s going. Those are my comments, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Any other comments or comments or questions on this matter? Councillor Hopkins? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to Councillor Layman for his concerns. I know it’s a very busy area. I guess through you to staff, I understand we have the Masonville Secondary Plan come to work to us not too long ago.

[17:21] It’s the secondary plan that we have in front of us with Oxford and Wonderland very similar in its questions and concerns moving forward. I know it’s gonna be a couple of years before this comes back to us, but it’s a very similar to the Masonville Secondary Plan that we just approved. The Chair. So the Masonville Secondary Plan, although the context is different, it is also a transit village and both secondary plans do address taking the London Plan framework for these to be high-density mixed-juice areas and planning for that, but looking individually at the different contexts within each.

[18:10] So in this particular case, we would take what is a up-to-22-story type area and then kind of massage and look at the context and the compatibility of that and address kind of the larger organizing areas. So it will be similar in kind of scope and scale to Masonville, but it will address different issues as well. Thank you for that. And I understand that it is already a well-used transit area with, I know my son, when he went to university, took that route up under land and it’s already quite busy when it comes to transit and hopefully alleviating some traffic.

[18:56] And I understand the Councillor’s concerns. It is a busy spot. Any other comments on this matter? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’m just going to be very brief in echoing Councillor Layman’s concerns. With all due respect to staff, well, there may be a general framework in the London plan. I’m not comfortable putting resources into further refining a secondary plan that doesn’t have a rapid transit route assigned to it right now.

[19:33] And we can talk about or speculate about whether funding will eventually be allocated to some route or another, but there’s no guarantee that that will happen. And certainly there’s a question of what the future of transit even looks like right now. So I don’t think I’m going to support this. I just don’t see that this being a place where we should be putting resources right now. Thank you. Any other comments, Mayor Holder? Thanks very much, Chair.

[20:07] I do want to remind colleagues that of the various senior levels of government funding that were put in place, we’ve already allocated, this particular council’s already allocated a significant amount of that funds, but there is still a serious amount of money that is available that may well be available for this particular route. And I share that only so that we’re not, just so that it’s clear to everyone that if you recall the original prospects of what the bus rabbit, the original BRT was intended to look at, it was certainly intended to consider that.

[20:53] We also know that we’re going to get some feedback from councilors in the north and west, and it turns some of the ideas that they’ve got with respect to that funding. I just didn’t want council to be of the view or have the concern that there wouldn’t be monies available. Should that be one of the directions and decisions? But I certainly agree with councilor Lewis that decision has not as yet been made. Councilor Lewis again. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify and follow up to the mayor’s comments. While there may be some funding left from senior levels of government, it’s my recollection that our council spent the entire municipal allocation available because we chose to go ahead with some projects that were further down the list.

[21:38] So any future funding for any further projects to access that money would have to come through the municipal tax levy. So I don’t disagree with you, your worship, that there’s still some potential to access from senior levels of government. But my point was we at the municipal level don’t have the funding to put into this currently or potentially not for a long, long time. Okay, the mayor’s going to go again. I don’t want to get into cross debate between councilor and mayor. So go ahead, mayor Holder, but then we perhaps could run.

[22:12] Yeah, and I will endeavor not to get into cross debate with council, but I would say that we as council and the opportunity comes up would be dumb as hell to not consider appropriate supports when you imagine that when some 70 cents on the dollar is going to be allocated to from federal and provincial governments, monies that we’ve already accepted subject to. So while everything councilor Lewis has said is correct as far as it goes, I know we won’t be so shortsighted as to lose the opportunity to make appropriate investments when it comes to pass.

[22:47] So with that, I’ll stop on the chair. Thank you, any other comments, right? I’m going to turn the chair over to councilor Hopkins for a moment. So I can speak to this matter. I have the chair, councilor Squire. Thank you very much. I thought this was going to be a straightforward matter. And I have to say with all due respect after listening to Mr. Barrett speak, I’m quite concerned. It seems to me that what we’re looking at here is a transit village that still contemplates rapid transit, BRT as it was, Mr. Barrett used those words many times.

[23:23] He said that it’s still a possibility that it will be enacted. Similarly, we have the Masonville plan. And many of my constituents have said to me quite clearly, why are we bringing forward this transit village plan when there was a vote on BRT and BRT failed? I’m also very aware of the fact that I crafted a motion to go back to staff to present alternatives to BRT in the north end on Richmond Street. And what came back to council was the identical rapid transit plan on Richmond Street that had been instituted before.

[24:00] I’m very concerned that we are in a time of a prelude to BRT part two. And I feel that there are certainly whatever council ultimately decides, I feel that I have a very clear impression of where staff stands on this particular issue. And I am very concerned. Any further comments? There being none, we will call the vote. And by the way, I’m gonna vote against this matter at this point. Thank you.

[24:31] I’ll return the chair back to you, Councillor Squire. Thank you, Vice Chair. So we’ll call the vote. We need a mover and seconds are sorry for this recommendation. Moved by Councillor Hillier, seconder. Councillor Hopkins, I will call the vote. Chair, to be clear, are we talking about the staff recommendation that we’re voting on? Nothing’s been amended to that? No, no amendments. Thank you.

[25:02] I’ll vote no. Voting no. Closing the vote, the motion loses warm to five. Moving on to item 2.6 is my information that Councillor Hopkins wanted to do 2.6 and 2.13 together.

[25:45] Go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Chair, as these two items are really one development, just one is a vacant condo development. And the other one is a single 44 single homes. And I do have a couple of questions. If I may through you, this is a development that’s already started and there’s a lot of interest in the community and especially around the wetland feature, the OS5 that exists in the green space. And through you, I would like to ask staff about as this development, it’s already started as it continues if what is being done in terms of the protection of the wetland and the process of this development as it and the green space.

[26:39] Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s Bruce Page speaking. The wetland itself has been protected. It’s in zone for OS5. As part of the engineering review, there was buffers and some plantings right around the perimeter of the wetland, especially to the west and to the north, to the south where the condominium is. There’s some additional buffer plantings being located within the feature, just outside of the fence of the condominium. In terms of the green space, the open space, which would be on the far eastern portion of the site, there is a future walkway block, halfway block, that’ll connect up to the parkland more of the site.

[27:24] Whether it becomes an active pathway or not is still to be assessed. Councilor? Thank you for that information. I know the community is interested. I have another question for you to staff around the, the development of the homes just below Manhattan Drive, just to the south as it connects to the development, just south of that. I know the land is not even, and just wondering what staff, what the plans are to sort of mitigate the leveling of the land.

[28:00] So it does not interfere with the development, just below it. Through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Go ahead, Scott. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Matt Felker speaking. So we’ve actually been having a number of conversations with the development engineer and the goal of course is to minimize the impact to that condo block at the south edge. We have been in touch with the property owner there as well, whose property, their foundation well is basically directly almost on the property line.

[28:35] So we’ve been working with them and coming up with some solutions for that. Actually, in speaking with our staff and our engineering staff, we actually think the situation would be better once the grading is complete on the new development. And we’ve done our best to direct the open land flow routes to logical spots so that we’re not impacting the existing condo. Go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, thank you for the work. I know it’s really important to have that. I guess those conversations and relieving some of the fear because if you go on the land, it is not even.

[29:15] And as one development what’s up to the other, there are those concerns. So thank you for the work and I would encourage you to continue working with the owners below as well as this development moves forward. And Mr. Chair, I just want to make a comment about this development. I know we’ve had concerns about the construction and the remains of the dirt and the vehicles. This is a very well used road at Boulder and Southdale. There’s a lot of traffic. But this is a main, one of the main entrances into the Byron area.

[29:51] And as you enter, you’re going downhill as well. So there’s lots of traffic, lots of construction. And I would encourage that that road be also maintained, trying to keep it as safe as possible for residents as they move along. So we’d like to just make those comments and again, share that information with whoever is listening, the importance of moving on this road. Thank you.

[30:39] We can vote on them together. And I just, Councillor Hopkins, would you like to move them, is that all right? Moved by Councillor Hopkins. I just need a seconder, Mayor Holder. So I will call the vote on, that’s both two, nine, two, six and two, 13. True, I vote yes. Thank you. I still am not getting my vote.

[31:21] So I’m still not coming up. It’s something I did. I’ll vote yes, manually. No, no, I’m still not coming up. I don’t, but I voted manually, yes. Mr. Chair, this is Anna speaking. Yes, go ahead. I can’t hear you now, Councillor Hopkins.

[32:00] But when you say when you open it, open one. But where do I find that? His vote isn’t coming up. I apologize. No, it’s okay, no, I need to apologize. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I’d just like to say that I do have a vote coming up, but it relates to the Oxford Wonderland secondary plan. Apologies.

[32:50] If you open up the little partial triangle, it says motion to move 2.6 and 2.13 together. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And the last matter to be pulled is the 2.10 proclamation of amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, Councillor Hopkins.

[33:30] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did ask to have this pulled, just because I do have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. But I guess my first question is, it’s good to receive this report. I know the timelines were very, very short. We did not get information from latch on this, but they were informed about it. I wonder if I, through you to staff, I can ask a question around where we move forward now, given that there was a very little conversation in the community when it came, when it comes to the heritage community, on the changes that the province is making.

[34:19] So, and staff have made their comments and concerns noted as well in this report, but just to ask the question on what are the next steps as we move forward with the council policy manual? Go ahead, staff. Thank you, through the chair. This is Kyle Ganyu heritage planner. In terms of next steps, we’re looking towards implementation and how the amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the new regulation are affecting existing processes.

[34:54] So within the staff report, we did try to identify where there are some gaps in the council policy and where we may seek to address those through new policies to ensure that there’s a fair and transparent process and that there’s consistency as it’s applied going forward. To give you an example, there is a new process in the Ontario Heritage Act, by which municipal council must consider an objection to a notice of intent to designate before there’s an appeal. We have no existing process by which this would consider, and it isn’t defined in the act or its regulation.

[35:33] So it’s the type of thing that does need a council policy to ensure that it’s dealt with in a consistent manner, and that’s what staff will be working towards is developing that policy to bring back to you. We would also like to consult more with the latch. The latch’s comments are on, they did receive the same report, excuse me, and their report is on this committee’s agenda tonight. I anticipate there’ll be a lot more discussion and there was some good input provided to staff from the latch.

[36:05] They did, however, receive the staff report. Thank you. Councilor opt-ins. Yeah, thank you for that. So the new policy is to be implemented. I would assume, would that be coming back to a soon and would you need direction from council to make these changes? Mr. Konya. Thank you, and through the chair, in the report in November, we did seek direction, staff sought direction from council in taking actions necessary.

[36:38] So unless one of my colleagues may disagree, I would hope that we would be operating under that previous direction. Because of the July 1st proclamation, we wanted to bring forward a staff report at the next opportunity to ensure that council, the latch, and as well as members of the public were aware of the amendments and the new rules that we’re playing by. Good to know that that’s gonna be coming forward and that you do not need any direction for that. And given that the heritage community, it wasn’t really given a chance to make comments.

[37:12] I really want to make sure that it gets back to them on these changes that are forward. Thank you. We do have, I’ve just been made aware that we do have a delegation request on this, which is Ms. Velastro. So I’ll go to Councillor Lewis, and then we’ll deal with the delegation request. Go ahead Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to our staff, and particularly for those in the community who may be following this, following up on Councillor Hopkins’ points, I noted in the staff report, sections of the Ontario Heritage Act were not proclaimed yet, and that in some cases, some key changes, for example, the prescribed principles are not included in the regulation.

[38:08] So through you to staff, I’m just hoping if they can clarify that further discussions will be taking place with the province as well, in terms of clarifying what implementation may look like, given that there are some pieces that appear to be missing from the provincial legislation. Thank you, and through the chair, I share those same concerns in terms of the signals that staff received in terms of what was included in the legislation, that there isn’t the implementing tools in the regulation.

[38:42] Those are some of the comments that staff have provided through the environmental registry of Ontario. The comments appended to the staff report, through the consultation that I participated in with the Ministry of Heritage Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. They did advise that there would be future opportunities to participate and provide input, but it remains to be seen exactly what that will entail. There are some things that I think were excluded from the regulation because there wasn’t a clear sense of consensus on previous comments that municipalities, members of the public, and the development industry provided to the Ministry on the previous environmental registry submissions.

[39:29] So through you, Mr. Chair, just to be clear with Mr. Go on you, really what we’re dealing with today is a receive an update on where we are today, but what I’m hearing from you and what I felt myself is that there’s still a fair amount of work to be done with the province in clarifying some of the details here as well, and that’ll be part of the work that you’ll be doing before. Thank you, Councillor. There is a delegation request from Ms. Velastro. I’m not sure if Ms. Velastro is here.

[40:04] I don’t know the nature of the delegation other than it pertains to this particular matter. So first, maybe we could see if what the committee wants to do with the delegation request. If you want to hear it today or another date, I’m in the committee’s hands. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, is the delegation here? I can check that, I’m not sure if she is, I was told we weren’t sure of that, but maybe we can check if possible. I would like to know.

[41:03] Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Barb Westlake Power, we do have a Maria logged into the meeting, and I have asked Maria to unmute. I’m not sure if that Ms. Velastro or not. Okay. I’m just a spectator. Okay, thank you. So I can’t say that Ms. Velastro is here, so we couldn’t, we can approve the delegation, but we can’t hear it today.

[41:39] And then I, if this matter, I don’t know if this matter would have to come back then, or whether we could approve it today, because we wouldn’t have anything to have a delegation on if we approved it today. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Mr. Chair, since the delegation is not here, I would just refer to the next PEC meeting. All right, the delegation or this entire matter? The delegation, is that not what we’re speaking of that? I think we can still approve the matter itself. So the motion, you’re moving that we refer the delegation to the next planning meeting.

[42:10] Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Hillyer, any further comments? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I will not be supporting referring the delegation. I’m happy to receive the communication that they provided us. But this delegate, or this individual seeking delegation status in the email that she sent to committee members and staff at the end of last week, indicated that her intent seek delegation status was wanting to apply this Ontario Heritage Toolkit right now to an application that is in process with regard to the Kent Brewery.

[42:55] This individual tried to use the delegation status last time to get a decision on a matter that this committee has already sent back for referral for staff to work out with the applicant what the proposal is. I’m not going to support short cutting the process with a delegation status to hear on the Kent Brewery matter yet again, when it’s been referred to a future meeting after staff have worked with the applicant. So if we want to receive the communication, I’m happy to do that. If we’re referring the delegation, I will be voting against it.

[43:28] Thank you. Any other comments? Mayor Holder? Not dissimilar to Councillor Lewis. Look, when someone asks for delegation status, it’s certainly the privilege of committee to confer that status. If the person’s not there, we have no obligation. I say this with deep respect to our community. We have no obligation, nor should we set a precedent as an automatic referral to another meeting. I think that’s, I think for any number of procedural reasons, that’s not appropriate.

[43:59] I think to receive the communication where I think this particular participant has provided some views on the perspective, great. And so I’d be comfortable receiving the communication as far as it goes. I think it’s an extremely awkward precedent to automatically be queen future status. When a person is requested for this meeting, chooses or is for whatever reason unable to attend, does the stop come from future meetings, future situations, not this time now. Thank you. Yeah, the clerk just wanted to address that issue, perhaps just to give some context.

[44:32] Go ahead. Thank you, the person that had requested delegation status has just advised me that Kyle Ganyu has kindly explained the changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and has withdrawn her request for delegation status. Okay, so I take it to, will you withdraw your motion then, Councillor Hopkins, given that? Yeah, I’d just like to— No, no, you can comment, but I just want to get the, determine the motion. Given the news, I would just make, I’m just gonna move the motion to receive this report.

[45:09] Okay, so you’re gonna remove your motion to refer the delegation to the next meeting. Councillor Hill, you’re are you okay with that? Given what the delegate said? Okay, go ahead then, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’d just like to move the staff’s motion and receive the report. Thank you, seconder for that. Councillor Layman, any further comments? I know I’ve called the vote. Sure, I’ll vote yes, thanks. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[46:03] Say public participation meeting, not to be heard before 4 p.m. for 450 Warren Cliff Road South, so I’ll need a motion to open the public participation meeting, open by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, any further discussion, then I will call the vote on opening the public participation meeting. That would be yes, Chair, thank you. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[46:37] Now I understand that there is no staff report on this matter, so we can deal with anything from the staff in terms of questions. So I’m gonna go straight to members of the public, and I’ll ask first, is the applicant present? Not a peer, so any other members of the public wishing to speak, and before we get to that point, I just wanna remind people that if you’re in one of the rooms in the building that you’re going to speak, where you’re going to speak, you will require it.

[47:12] It is required that you wear a mask, so please keep that in mind. Any public input on this matter? Apologies, can you guys hear me now? Who is this? Sorry, this is the applicant. Oz come off from MHBC planning. Oh, okay. Apologies, I had unmuted on the screen, but I didn’t press the unmute button on my computer itself, so I was still muted. That’s fine. I’m just here to answer any questions of Council, along with staff, if there are any.

[47:48] Thank you very much. Moving this matter forward, thank you. Thank you. There’s supposed to be someone else with comments. Is that a person on the line? You are the most patient chair in the world, Joe. Oh, I’ve learned it by being a politician. I mean, patient.

[48:23] Am I supposed to be speaking at this point? Yes, can I just get your name, sir? My name is Ira. I live right next door to the development, and I was hoping to hear some information about it, and possibly give you an input on it. Okay, so there’s no official presentation. If you have questions that you have, you can let us know, and we’ll seek to have your questions answered, but this is your opportunity to provide your input into how you feel about this application. Okay, the application is fine.

[49:01] I hope that we would, the public would be provided with information on what specifically is going to be built before it’s simply approved. Okay, so that’s in the application, which is available in the material that we have for the meeting. We don’t always get a presentation from staff. So that is where we are. So you could get that information from staff, if you wanted, you could follow up, but most people come on and give us their position on the application, what they think of it.

[49:35] You seem to be okay with it, but I’m not sure what else guy I can provide you with. Okay, I will keep listening, and I’ll soon get some more info, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other members of the public? There being no one else speaking, then I’m gonna ask someone to move closing the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Anything further? I will call the vote. I vote yes, Chair.

[50:21] Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Any questions or comments from Councillor Hillier? Thank you. I’m just going over the proposal just to help with the public. And it does look quite nice. This is the old KFC, if I’m not correct. You’re asking me? Yeah, I was just asking, if you knew this was the old KFC. Okay, there’s a lot of KFCs in London, I can’t tell. I’m more on the phone, sorry.

[50:53] This appears to be the old KFC, and it looks like they’re looking to change it into a medical or a wine and liquor store. And I think that would be an upgrade from the constant smell of fast food next door. I will be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know, I do have a quick question about the notices. There’s no sort of mention that they were sent to the public. And if there was any comments by the public received by staff, I could have missed it in the report, but I would like to sort of get a better understanding about notices being sent as well as, do we know what is going to be placed in this area?

[51:43] Go ahead, staff. Hi, Craig Smith, planner of this file. Through you, Chair, the application is just to amend the official plan to bring it in line with the London plan to allow for the expanded ranges of uses. The range of uses are permitted in the, as I said, was a printed London plan and includes the additional medical dental offices, clinic, laboratory, retail stores and liquor and wine stores. The application itself was circulated.

[52:16] Notice that application was circulated on, let me just get to the right dates here. Sorry, the notice of application was circulated on May 6th and was in the London or on May 6th. No comments were received through that process. The notice of the public meeting, which was sent out last Thursday for everybody to, for people to know that there was a public participation meeting, that notice I would suggest is where the, the abutting property owner has received his information from and has attended today.

[53:08] I did not receive any comments prior to this meeting regarding his concerns. I would have been more than happy to answer any and all concerns. My understanding is that we’re just expanding the range of uses. There’s not an actual use contemplated yet, but we could turn that over to the, to the applicant’s agent and they may be able to expand on that further. Thank you, applicant, are you still there? Hi, can you hear me?

[53:42] Yes, I can hear you there. People are asking you about the range of uses that might be expected. To Mr. Smith’s point, what we’re trying to do is take the existing building that’s been vacant for some time and just expand on the range of permitted uses so that we could potentially find a tenant for this building. There’s no new construction proposed. The idea is just to actually utilize the space that’s there for something to create a bit more livelihood along the street there versus having it just empty and derelict. So the idea is to, again, in line with the London plan to permit a range of uses ranging from office, medical office, dental, clinic, lab, retail, liquor, beer, and wine store.

[54:24] Just, again, to try to promote some tendencies and get some flexibility there too. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that information. And thank you to the applicants. We heard we don’t know what’s going there. I would encourage the resident to reach out to Mr. Smith, though, if he’s would like further information, that’s always available to the public to reach out to the planner to ask any other questions that they may have. And thank you for coming out to the meeting. Any other comments, questions, or someone prepared to move the recommendation?

[55:06] Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Anything further than I’ll call the vote? Chair, I’ll vote yes to support, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Next matter is item 3.2, which is a public participation meeting regarding a draft plan of vacant land condominium at 360 Callaway Road. Again, there is not going to be a staff presentation, however, they’ll be available to answer any questions.

[55:45] I just need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by the mayor. Anything further, I’ll call the vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Is the applicant here for a representative? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Jamie Guffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. I’m here representing a Wastell, the owner of the property.

[56:17] Okay, did you wanna make a presentation or say anything? Just like to say we’ve had the opportunity to review the staff reporting and recommendations were in concurrence with the conclusions and the recommendations of the staff report, and we’re here to answer any questions of the committee or of the public. Thank you. Members of the public, there are no, I understand no members of the public waiting to speak, so I will ask for a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[56:53] There’s nothing further, I will call the vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, I’ll ask the committee if questions or comments or wish to bring a motion. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

[57:28] Yeah, thank you. I know one of the comments was around the retention of the trees and just through you to staff. Was that, are we able to protect the trees? Go ahead, staff, through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Mike Corby here. As mentioned in the staff report, so a tree preservation report would have been required through the site plan approvals process. I do not believe though, through that report, any of the trees on the site were able to be retained. That being said, they are required to plant several trees through the site plan approval process on the property.

[58:08] Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that information. Anything further or are we going to bring a motion? Councillor Lewis, you’re working hard tonight. I’m going to give you a gold star at this point in time, even though it’s early in the night. I’ll move the staff recommendation, Mr. Chair. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Anything further? I will call the vote. Chair, I’ll support this, yes. Motion to vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[58:49] Thank you. The next matter is a public participation meeting with regard to nine updraft plan of vacant land condominium with regard to 915 Upper Point Avenue. And I need to open the public participation meeting. So when someone moved that, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Anything further? I’ll call the vote. I’ll support that, Chair, yes. Once again, I’ll hold it. Hello.

[59:33] Seconded by the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, third staff presentation. So I’m going to see if the applicant is here and wishes to make any comments. Okay, yes. It’s Lindsay Clark here from Sifson Properties. I just would like to make a note that we are in agreement with staff’s recommendation today. And I’m also available if committee has any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members of the public, there are no members of the public.

[1:00:07] I understand making— I am. Oops. I am here. It’s not Lee Craig. Okay. And you are, your address, please, if that’s okay? Certainly, 1453, West L. Borne. All right. Sorry, I didn’t mean to skip you, but I didn’t know you were here on this one. So you have five minutes. So you can make any comments you like to the committee during that time period. So go ahead. Okay, thank you so much. We reside directly across from this area and we have some concerns with regards to this development as far as, will there be any sort of barrier planned on that side of the road, blocking the view or the noise, any of that?

[1:01:00] What is the plans? Okay, other issues. I’ll try to get your questions answered so that if you have other questions, sure. Yeah, so we were concerned about the barrier, whether there is going to be one. And if not, we’re wondering because we will be impacted by this if there is any sort of provision made so that you could perhaps help us with some sort of barrier, whether it’s a wall of some sort, vegetation, something.

[1:01:34] Right now we’re finding it’s extremely busy already even before this part of the excavation commences. My husband was almost hit in our driveway by someone who chose to, I guess, want to turn around and didn’t realize that my husband was at the end of the lane way and just about hit them. The traffic is horrendous, the speed, although the speed has been reduced, people are still driving 30, 40 kilometers faster than the speed.

[1:02:09] Our house has been so dirty from the construction and that’s even further north. And we’re just wondering, again, is there anything that we, as homeowners, whether you’re willing to, perhaps clean our siding, windows, whatever, every single day, I have to go out and clean so much dirt and dust off of our windows and our front porch and they haven’t even started to dig in front of our house. Also, the vibration and when the excavation was taking place, there’s so much vibration and noise.

[1:02:54] And again, that’s not even directly across from us. That’s down the road. So we’re a little concerned what’s gonna happen when they do start to do all the construction right in front. Also, what the timeline is when you’re intending on starting this and we’re finding it very difficult to even get out of our driveway at this point and are concerned about the safety aspect. Also, we’d like to know who the contact person is at Siftans that we would speak to. If we have any further questions or concerns, there’s an awful lot of garbage that’s being dumped in front of our home.

[1:03:36] That’s another thing that every day we have to go out and clean up garbage that people just, I don’t know what has happened with society, but they love to throw out their Tim Hortons and McDonald’s and Tim Hortons cups and such. So yeah, that’s about it at this point. Great, thank you very much. What I will do is when we’re finished with the public participation, I’ll ask the staff and the applicant to answer your concerns. All right. Thank you so much. Oh, thank you. Thanks very much for calling in.

[1:04:07] We really appreciate it. Any other public comments? No. So that is it for public participation. So I’ll just need a motion to close the public participation meeting, move by, Mayor Holder. Second by Councillor Lehman. There’s nothing further, all in favor. We’ll vote, I’m sorry, we’ll vote on screen. Getting used to Mayor Holder voting. I would, yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[1:04:41] All right. So before we go to the committee, I’ll just try to get some of the questions that was asked by the member of the public. So the first question, and this could be staff or the applicant, is there any barrier plan to block the view of the development or buffer noise? And if not, is there any other provision for some barrier of some type to be provided? So I’ll go to the whoever wishes to answer that. To you, Mr. Chair, it’s not that we’re speaking. Just a clarification, is this item 3.3 or 3.4 that we’re talking about?

[1:05:18] This is 3.4 that we’re on. Are you thinking the comments are on a different matter? Nope, no. The comments are certainly appropriate to upper point. It’s just, I feel like we may have missed 3.3 public meeting. Oh, I’m sorry. Totally wrong. We’re on 3.3. These comments are certainly appropriate for upper point, and we can take those under advice and deal with 3.4 when it comes out. Okay, why don’t we do that then? We’ll do it with upper, we’ll save those questions for upper point. I apologize for confusing you.

[1:05:56] Councillor Hopkins on this matter. Go ahead. Yes, Mr. Chair. I was wondering what item we were on. So we’re on 3.3, which is 355 Middleton Avenue. And I think the public comments were on the different matter. So I jumped to the different matter. That’s my fault for creating that confusion. So we’re on Middleton Avenue. Okay, thank you. Did you have some comments about it or? I did have comments on upper point that is in my ward.

[1:06:32] Okay, we’re gonna go to that next. So any on Middleton Avenue, is somebody prepared to move their recommendation then? Move by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Anything further? I will call the vote. Chair, I’ll support this, yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[1:07:07] All right, we will now move to item 3.4, which is 915 Upper Point Avenue, a draft plan of vacant land condominium. So I’ll just need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis, all in favor? Yes, Chair. On screen please. The mayor has put me off my game with it ‘cause he always says yes. This will be amazing despite nature. Yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[1:07:42] All right, just to clarify, we had some comments earlier when we’ll just apply those comments to this. And I will ask those questions in that way. Have we heard from the applicant yet on this matter? Is the applicant present? Yes, it is Lindsay Clark and from some properties. I am present. I’m not sure if you guys want me to— I’d like you to try to answer the questions if we, yeah, let’s go through them. The first question was whether there’s any barrier plan for blocking the view or noise. And if not, is there any provision for anything like green cover or anything like that?

[1:08:19] So we do currently have a little bit of a berm along there that’s currently present. However, that’s just a temporary location right now that will be removed moving forward to allow connectivity to the existing path that’s on West Elborn. So there isn’t any barrier or noise walls anticipated. We do include a noise study that is a part of the site and approval process and is also required part of removing holding so that has been included.

[1:08:52] So as a part of that, there isn’t any actual barriers or noise walls required along West Elborn. In terms of vegetation, there will be a landscape plan and on that basis, obviously there will be some vegetation planted as per the city requirement, but not in terms of an actual formal wall or barrier vegetation, which is the individual trees and or drubs that would be planted. In terms of the, I guess I can kind of make notes there. Okay, good. - I felt the issues if you want me to continue. - Yeah, so you can continue.

[1:09:29] That would be great. Sure. So the next one was with regards to speed issues and and dirt along there. Unfortunately, I can’t really speak to the speed issues ‘cause that’s unrelated to our site. It is related more so to capacity on our roadways. So that’s really unrelated to this development. In terms of dirt that comes off, unfortunately, next to developing subdivisions is one of the issues that arises through the city. So it’s not specific to this development as well. We try to minimize that in terms of dust and dirt that’s off the site, but obviously we can’t control that 100% of the time.

[1:10:11] Again, with the vibrations as well and noise coming from the site, it is a construction site within an approved subdivision plan. So in terms of that, it is kind of put in parcel with a construction site. So again, that is something that is out of our control, being on a construction site and a developing neighborhood. And then in terms of timeline, so we would be looking hopefully to start construction on the new portion here that we’re looking for approval for this evening.

[1:10:46] So we’re looking for fall construction. And but the houses wouldn’t actually be built most likely until spring of next year. And then I think the last question was about safety, or sorry, not the last one of the last questions, about safety again. I mean, the safety issue is not related to this development site specifically. It is more of a generalized comment, so I can’t really provide any additional feedback on that. And then I think there was a question about garbage.

[1:11:20] Again, that is not specific to this development. It is, unfortunately, our society as a whole that is being impacted to this resident. So I think that’s all of the questions or concerns here if there are any other of you happy fans. Yep, they wanted to contact it, Sif, and they could contact their questions. Yes, I can provide that. I don’t know who I can provide that to, but I can be the main contact. And then, and if I need to direct internally, I can do that, but I can be the main point. Okay, what is your name again?

[1:11:52] Yep, so Lindsey Clark would be Lindsey. So L-I-N-B-S-A-Y dot Clark, C-L-A-R-K, and dot com. Great, thank you. So they can follow up on any of these questions and if they want with you? Yes, exactly. And then I can put them through to the appropriate person internally if it’s not myself directly. Thank you. And I just wonder if staff could comment then on the traffic issue and the effect of the development on traffic in the area, if there was a traffic study or anything like that.

[1:12:30] And the issue of garbage that’s around the area. Thank you. And to you, Mr. Chair, it’s Matt Belberg speaking. So as Ms. Clark noted, this is our condominium block within an approved Plan of Subdivision. So we would have done a traffic impact study when the Plan of Subdivision was approved. But we do, when new applications come in, we do check those and revise those assumptions that were made. So we’ll go back and take a look through the site plan process and ensure that it’s reasonable or the amount of traffic on West on board is reasonable.

[1:13:08] That said, it is, West Alborn is currently a rural cross-section if I recall correctly. And there, over time through the DC, there would likely be an upgrade to that, to be an urban cross-section with sidewalks and curves and whatnot. And then the second question was garbage, correct? Yeah. And with garbage, I mean, we try to work with the developers, the individual developers and the subdivision developers to go around and clean that up as much as possible. If it does stray off the site, we’re a little bit more challenged, but the developers in this area have been very easy to work with.

[1:13:48] And they do try to make right the impacts of development to local residents. All right. And also my colleagues follow up on any other questions they have at this point in time. So committee questions, comments? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the public for coming out. I’ve heard quite a few concerns on as development comes forward along West Alborn. And we’ve seen it to the north of this development. And we’ve also approved it to the south a few months ago at PAC. The concerns of West Al is a continuous challenge as this area is developed.

[1:14:30] And I appreciate Mr. Valberg’s comments around development charges, updates to that road. Is there any, I don’t want to put you on the spot here, but when can the community see some upgrades? I know staff have reduced the speed limit, which is being helpful, but when can we expect some updates to this rural road, which is really no longer a rural road coming forward? Question number one.

[1:15:03] Certainly and through you, Mr. Chair. At this point, I don’t see anything in particular for West Alborn, but I can go back and check the DC study and bring that information to you ahead of council. We do have the upgrades planned along Oxford Street in 2025. And then there is also the roundabout plan for 2024 at Oxford and Gideon. So that should help with some of the traffic boating in the area, but obviously it doesn’t deal with West Alborn. Thank you for that, Mr. Valberg. It would be good information that I could share with the community as they deal with the challenges of getting in and out onto West Al.

[1:15:42] I also, since the applicant is here, just want to make a quick comment on other concerns. I’ve heard with construction vehicles in particular, with all this development, the speed of construction vehicles is becoming quite a challenge. And I know seeing all this development is a good thing, but as the community deals with not only the changes, but has to sort of move on this road, I would caution the construction vehicles to sort of pay attention to that reduced speed limit.

[1:16:17] I want to just also mention that the development that we have here, I’ll be supporting this recommendation because it really is a continuation of what’s already happening to the North, but also what’s happening to the South. And I’m glad the resident has the information to get in touch with Sifton for further information as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Someone prepared to move the recommendation?

[1:16:51] Oh, we need to close the PPM. So we’ll do that. Motion to close the PPM, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis, and we will call that question. Happy to close it, Chair. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And then a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Moved by Councillor Hillyer, seconded by Mayor Holder.

[1:17:24] There’s nothing further, I’ll call the vote on that. We’ll support you. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Next matter is a public participation meeting with regard to four, one, four to four, 18 old wonderland road, and I will need a motion to open the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s nothing further, I will call the vote. That would be yes, Chair.

[1:18:00] Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, and there is a staff presentation. So go ahead, staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a zoning amendment 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 8 old wonderland road, going to the next slide. I’m sorry, there’s a slide somewhere in the documents that we have. I believe they’re in the added agenda. All right, and do you have a page?

[1:18:34] I do not, I believe Heather Lewis, you’ll have that page number. Okay, I just want to make sure the committee before you start the committee’s number, 2/8. That’s page, page 2/8, Chair. Thank you very much, so we’re all in the same area. Go ahead. Okay, going to page two, the presentation. The subject side is located between Springbank Drive to the north, people terrace to the south, on the east side of Old Wonderland Road. The site does have a front edge of approximately 43 meters and a total area of 0.65 hectares and isn’t a regular shape and is in a regular in shape.

[1:19:11] The subject side is also currently vacant. A woodland and pond feature are located directly to the north of this site. Going on to slide three, the proposed development. The proposal is a cluster townhouse development, consisting of 13 cluster townhouses and eight cluster stack townhouses for a total of 29 units and 49 parking spaces. Revisions were made in response to concerns raised by staff and the public and slight modifications to address the technical site design requirements were included with regards to parking.

[1:19:47] This revised proposal did not change the number of units, however, it specifically addressed a reduction in parking and reduced setbacks for decks. A further revised site plan was submitted July 2021 to clearly outline the woodland and compensation area to be zoned open space, OAS-5. Just looking at slide four, proposed development, you’ll see the front view looking northeast and then looking at the next slide, slide five, this is a view looking southeast of the proposed development.

[1:20:29] Through the processes, there was some written concerns and calls about this development. The primary concerns related to over intensification, environmental, traffic, privacy, parking and drainage. There also were a couple of concerns with regards to the tenure of the new units, the decrease in the property value and the privacy and noise and lighting. Moving to slide five, looking at the policies, the policy snapshot, the London plan is neighborhood place type.

[1:21:04] It does permit low-rise residential units, including the stock townhouses to a minimum height of 2.5. And looking at the official plan, it’s multifamily medium density residential. So with regards to these policies, they are consistent with the PPS and conforming to the enforced policies of the London plan and 89 plan. The recommended cluster townhouse development will contribute to the existing range and mix of housing types in the area, which consists of one in two story single detach, I mean detach cluster townhouses in the immediate vicinity with higher intensity cluster housing and permits further out.

[1:21:42] The recommended amendment facilitates the development of this underutilized site. So as such, staff has satisfied the proposed intensity and scale of development is in conformity with the city’s official plans. I just want to touch base quickly on the development setbacks and parking. The proposed special provisions for this are for decks three meters for interior side yards. The proposed rear yard for the decks is three meters minimum. Parking for the stack townhouses is one instead of 1.25.

[1:22:22] And the setback to the open spaces OS five. And that is because of the way the woodland is in the compensation area. Just going into the parking, I do want to explain that there is in tandem parking provided ‘cause I know parking was a concern for the residents. So that cannot be counted under the zoning bylaw regulations, but it should be known that there is tandem parking available, one car in the garage, one on the driveway. Further slide 10, looking at natural heritage and environmental impact study was submitted and there were recommendations included.

[1:23:00] These will be dealt with through the site plan stage within the recommendations, there is mitigation measures that have been specified. And I’ll go to those next. So looking at our recommendation, we are recommending that the zoning be changed on these lands along with the site plan recommendations, which are board and board fencing along the east, north and south property boundaries. This has been incorporated because of the concerns of the neighborhood to ensure the naturalization of feature restoration and compensation is required to be completed.

[1:23:40] That comes in with the environmental impact assessment and a recommendation from the ecologist. Ensure that the development agreement is clear that the restoration and compensation area is to be protected in a natural state and not manicured. That goes along with the city ecologist recommendation. And then last, a small burn should be created along the edges of the storage area to direct flows back to the road surface and not towards the pond feature to the north. So therefore, looking at all of this, staff have recommended that the zoning be changed to a residential R5 special provision zone and an open space OS5 zone to protect that woodland and provide for the compensation area.

[1:24:25] Thank you. Thank you. So we’ll hear if the applicant is here, we’ll hear from the applicant and then we’ll do technical questions. Is the applicant present? Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Hi, this is Colin McClure from 414 Inc. I just want to say thank you to staff for working through this process with us. And we agree with the report here to answer any questions that committee or the public might have.

[1:25:01] I’m also joined by Harry Goosens from Dillon Consulting, who’s our consulting engineer. So if there are any technical questions, come up, I’ll defer to him. But to mute for now and happy to speak where I can. Thank you. Just going to the committee then, are there any technical questions for either the staff or the applicant? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yes, I was just wondering what the units per hectare are on this, the intention.

[1:25:40] Through you, Mr. Chair, I believe the units per hectare are 44. Is that fine, Councillor? Any other questions, technical questions only? They’re being done. We will then go to the public for public participation. I don’t know if we’re going to start with the overflow rooms or go on to the telephone. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, can you hear me? I can hear you and just to be clear, you will be allowed up to five minutes to speak to the committee.

[1:26:16] And I just need your name and address if you would like. Yeah, Colin Rogers, 864 Berkshire Drive. Okay, go ahead, sir. I’d just like to comment. I believe it was Councillor Hopkins who joined us all to contact staff. I’ve been trying to contact staff for three weeks. Alanna Riley, she doesn’t answer the phone. So I am not as well prepared as I would like to open. I’m prepared to start now.

[1:26:51] Go ahead. Thank you. I have here the report, which I just picked up today. It is a flawed report. They doesn’t seem to have been made with a site visit. And the officer seems to have dismissed all the significant complaints of the residents. The London plan, as I understand it, is to provide for vibrant, healthy, and fulfilling neighborhoods. Whereas if this zoning application is put through, it will turn old Wonderland Road into an overcrowded, more abundant street, where you’re elected to get run over it because of the cars having to park on the road due to the lack of car parking spaces.

[1:27:39] Particularly, the overall design is out of keeping with the purpose of the street. These are to be rental units, whereas the rest of the street is owner occupied. And the rest of the street are single dwellings, single family dwellings. The appearance as well is out of keeping. We will have a road, very tightly, close to the road of single houses and stacked units. The setting is discordant with the existing street scene. The outlook will be blighted and it is overbearing.

[1:28:16] We’ve already seen that the garden space has been halved. The parking, well, the changes are just unrealistic. Keeping in mind these are rental properties. Changing stacked unit particularity is just absurd. The housing of the stacked housing doesn’t seem to conform with the London plan, but I haven’t been able to check that yet due to lack of resources and staff that coming back to me. The tree loss, when I first contacted the developers with 22, now I believe it’s up to 33.

[1:28:54] But in this flawed report, the officer suggests that the recommendations to build fences and berms, et cetera will help to ease the overlook that has now been ruined of the existing properties by the new properties. I would have to say that on the report, the lack of a site is in as clear when the officer says that this is keeping the density and height compatible with the area.

[1:29:32] It is not. You just have to walk up and down the street to see it. So in conclusion, I would like to say that this plan is unrealistic. It’s cynical. We’ve already seen the number of changes that the developers have made and this will probably just be the start. And it’s opportunistic to the point of license. People are anticipating a London plan which hasn’t been approved yet and they’re stacking it to the lines. The massing is just inappropriate for this street.

[1:30:07] It’s incompatible and it’s ill-fitting as a site demonstrate will, a site visit rather will demonstrate. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Thank you for coming this evening. Any other members of the public who wish to speak? Are they in the overflow rooms? On Zoom. All right, who is next? Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Maureen Tucker. Can you hear me? I can’t hear you. I live at number 410 Old Wonderland Road. Okay.

[1:30:40] So the proposed development will wrap around me like a letter L if you can picture that. So along beside me and at the back and will loom over me. I don’t really have any questions per se. I went to the open house that 414 put on and my questions have been answered. But I just want to share my concerns and my feelings about it if I may. So of course our number one concern is we really don’t want this. We live in a single family home. We live in a street with 21 other single family homes to add another 29 families in a shoehorned into a 1.5, whatever it is, Hector, two acres, whatever.

[1:31:21] Right next door to us, they’ll literally have to be shoehorned will drastically affect our street and our enjoyment of our home. Other concerns, the loss of the trees, the loss of privacy are retaining wall between us and 414’s already been damaged. Don’t know what damage could be ahead with all the digging and possible damage to our foundation. The noise, the commotion of construction, we will lose access to our backyard. We’re concerned that there are rentals which will destabilize the street.

[1:31:53] 29 units turning over and over and over. We’re concerned about the street parking that I know darn well will happen. And I know this because I walk past Trowbridge every day. I feel it’s too much on too little land. Not looking forward to the construction chaos. Not looking forward to having 29 families just on the other side of whatever trees are left. But mostly what I want to say to you is the type of street that old Wonderland Road is. And I agree with the past, the previous speaker. I wonder if anyone proposing this has walked down the street and looked at it as a residential neighborhood.

[1:32:31] This has been the type of street for 75 years or more that single families have lived on. We have big lots, people come here and they stay. There are, I’m guessing a third of the people on our block have been here more than 20 years. And they chose old Wonderland Road for a reason. It’s quiet, it’s peaceful, it’s a friendly neighborhood of people who are here to stay and improve their properties. Old Wonderland Road in the last five years has become very destabilized as a result of the uncertainty of 414.

[1:33:04] Also, Teeple Terrace is less than 500 meters from my house. That development up there. And if I look out my dining room window, I can see the new development at Spring Bank in Wonderland. They are, the developers have been circling our neighborhood for many years and it is destabilized and added concern to our residents. And it’s as simple as, well, should we get a roof or do you think we’ll be moving in the next few years? It’s things like that. We haven’t felt at home here because of the uncertainty of next door. And it won’t just be next door. It will be next door and behind and looming over us.

[1:33:40] These are tall, uphill units. We will be completely, what’s the word I wanna use? They will cover us, that will feel very covered, I think. Mostly what I want to say to you is, I believe this development should not happen because it will change the DNA of the street. The street now are longtime homeowners who live here and love here and have put their time and energy and hearts into the street. You drop 29 rentals right next to me in all of those cars. And that’s gonna change my experience on old Wonderland Road and the experience of my neighbors.

[1:34:19] I understand the London Plan and I understand infill and I understand development and progress. But frankly, I don’t want it. And I don’t know anyone that does. So I appreciate you listening to me. All I can say to you is drive down on old Wonderland Road and look at this place and decide if you think 29 new rentals need to be dropped in. And if you lived at 410 old Wonderland Road, I think you’d feel the same that I do. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak today and I thank all of you for your time and attention.

[1:34:52] Thank you very much for coming and expressing your views. We do appreciate it. Do we have another submission? We have one more person, I believe, to speak. Hello, person muted, perhaps. Mr. Chair, they’ve been asked to unmute and haven’t.

[1:35:40] So perhaps they’re just observing the meeting. I’m sorry, they’re what? They have been asked to unmute and they have not. Then you said something. They may just be observing the meeting. All right, so I’m gonna ask whoever that is. It’s unmute if you wanna make comments on this particular development, which is 414 to 418 old Wonderland Road that you have your chance to do that now and then I’ll be closing the public participation meeting. So I’ll call once, twice, and I’ll ask for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

[1:36:20] Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Anything further? I will call the vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Okay. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And I will ask the committee of questions at this point in time or comments. None, go ahead, Councillor Lewis.

[1:37:02] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did listen to what the public was telling us in terms of their feedback. I just wanted to respectfully share in response to the one concern. From a planning perspective and from a council perspective, we cannot discriminate based on whether a property is going to be owner occupied or will be a rental unit. I did hear the concern about rental units raised multiple times. That’s not something that we can consider at this committee.

[1:37:35] So I just wanted to share that with the public. It is something that can sometimes change the character of a street, but the reality is we have to make a decision based on whether or not this fits the planning requirements. And in this case, I believe it does. Thank you. Further comments, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the public for coming out. I think you’re right.

[1:38:07] I heard a number of comments saying that you really do have to visit the site to really understand this development and how it’s going to work within the community. So I do appreciate those comments. I do have a question through you, Mr. Chair, to staff. Regarding the site line, it says you enter into this development and out of this development onto old wonderland. Has, are there, I’d like to know if that, if this study was done on these site lines, because entering out of this property or going up a hill.

[1:38:43] And there’s not a lot of room to move around. And just through you, just to staff, if we can make some comments on the site lines of movement into this development. Staff? Yep, through you, Mr. Chair. Transportation was involved throughout this application and staff did work with them on the comments with regards to access. And I believe that site lines will be further reviewed through the site plan approval process, but I just wanted to let you know that transportation has been involved throughout this application.

[1:39:21] Council office. Yeah, thank you for that. So I would ask the committee, given the number of responses and concerns from this neighborhood, if a holding provision could be placed as they go through the site plan process to allow for public participation. I think we’ve heard loud and clear the concerns. And this is an info right within the middle of a community. It’s not on an arterial road. It’s right within that hub of single detached homes. And I would ask the committee that they support the holding provision to allow for public participation, given that a lot of the concerns that we’ve heard here, when it relates to the tree loss, when it relates to the privacy, the buffering, especially the loss of access to the backyard of that neighboring property.

[1:40:23] I think there are a number of concerns that still remain in this neighborhood. And given the many challenges of development around them, that they’ve had to experience for the past number of years, I think it would be incumbent on us to allow for that. So I would like to bring forward that motion. All right. Is there a seconder for that motion for a holding provision? Councillor Layman is seconding that. Any comments on the holding provision itself? There being none I will call the vote on that amendment.

[1:41:00] I’ll support the amendment, Chair. Thank you. So you’ve added it to the motion. Does anyone have a problem with that if we just added into the motion and vote on the motion? No, okay. So we’re just gonna vote on the motion. It appears to me to be a friendly amendment. So what we’ll do is add it to the main motion and then vote on the main motion unless someone has an issue with that. So is there anything further?

[1:41:32] Yes, if I may, I just want a few other comments. And when I was visiting this site, you could not picture this development on the site. But having said that, I want to thank the committee for supporting the holding provision. And just so the public will understand that holding provision will allow them to make future comments on the site plan process as it relates to usually the privacy, the lighting, the trees, the snow removal, even there would be a number of further considerations that the public could make comments on.

[1:42:09] And I would like to encourage them to do that. I do want to just make comment around the OS5 that exists. It’s a spectacular spot there. And I do appreciate the amount of restrictions that have been put to protect the wildlife and the erosion and the sediments and the controls and that. I think that’s really important. I know we heard from the public comments around the stormwater management.

[1:42:45] And I wonder if through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, if they can speak to that, because you don’t want it flowing into the wetland, but yet it’s got to go uphill. And I just would like to hear their comments on how that’s going to move forward. And will that be part of that site plan process? Go ahead, stop. Three year, Mr. Chair, the stormwater management will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. However, I did want to make mention again, that in our recommendation through the ecologist, we did put it to be reviewed for the BIRM portion, where the snow removal will be, that that be visited through the site plan process.

[1:43:26] So it directs the flow down to Old Wonderland. Thank you for that. And I do appreciate the work. I think there’s a lot more work to be done on this development as it moves forward. Those 29 units are going to be intense for this almost small country road that exists tucked away in a neighborhood that will experience a big change. So I am very mindful of that challenge that’s going to happen within the community.

[1:44:03] Our policy support this, but I am not 100% convinced that this is ideal for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, any further comments? All right, I will call the matter with the amendment to add the holding provision. Sure, I’ll support the amended motion. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion passes five to one.

[1:44:46] The next matter is item 3.6, which is a public participation meeting with regards to 400 Southdale Road East. So I just need to open the public participation meeting. Moved by Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Lewis. There’s nothing further, I will call the vote. It will hardly say yes, Chair. I knew you would. Closing the vote, the motion carries 60. Staff presentation, please.

[1:45:27] Is someone— Sorry, my apologies, I was trying to unmute. So thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an application for 400 Southdale Road East. It’s an official plan on zoning bylaw amendments. Slide two, the subject site is on the north side of Southdale Road East. Subject site has an area of approximately 0.39 hectares. And the subject site was once a service station, but is now vacant. Point just slide three. The applicant proposed a 10-story mixed-use development with 198 dwelling units and 915 square meters of commercial and two levels of underground parking.

[1:46:10] Moving to slide four, that shows you the original. This is a rendering of the original proposal showing the 10-stories commercial. Going on to slide five, this is the revised proposed development. In March, the applicant requested a revision to the application. And this was in response to the concerns raised by city staff and the public and design modifications to address the technical site design requirements, including parking, amenity area, setbacks, et cetera. So this revised proposal did change the number of units.

[1:46:47] It changed the density and changed the height. This one included 181 units, a density of 462 units per hectare and a height of seven stories plus a mechanical penthouse. It also removed the commercial components. And here you can see the rendering of the revised proposed development on slide six. So looking at slide seven, and I apologize for the spelling error of neighborhood, the members of the public came in. There were quite a few comments.

[1:47:24] As I mentioned, the applicant had read these concerns and decided to host a virtual community meeting to get the public comments and to address and answer any questions they may have and concerns they had. The public’s concerns went to obviously the proposed use itself. They were concerned about over-intensification. They made comments on traffic and safety. They made comments on privacy, noise parking, the characteristics of the neighborhood, a PD sanitary pipe, which I will talk about later in my presentation and property values.

[1:48:09] So looking at policy, I just want to quickly let you know the London Plan is neighborhood place type. It does permit at this location stacked townhouses for plexus, low-rise apartments, emergency cares. With a maximum of four stories and up to six stories is considered with bonusing. And with regards to the official plan, it is neighborhood commercial node. And in this designation, multifamily high residential is permitted through a zoning by-law amendment.

[1:48:43] So looking at the policies with regards to use, staff have come up that the proposal contributes to a mix of housing types and provides choice in diversity and housing options for both current and future residents along with the support of a housing unit or proposal. There are no new roads or infrastructure being proposed, making the efficient use of land and existing services. This is not at a place in the neighborhood as its impact would be— there’s mitigations to help with the impact.

[1:49:18] The proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood’s place type, and staff are satisfied that the proposed apartment building is in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan and London Plan. So looking at intensity with regards to the policy, we came up with this facilitates the redevelopment of an underutilized site within the settlement area. It supports the provinces will to achieve a more compact higher density form of development consistent with the PPS. The proposed maximum seven-story apartment building contributes to the overall form of development in the area, which is considered appropriate.

[1:49:57] The development is sensitive to adjacent land uses through the building orientation, landscaping, parking area, and steps back in the building, which I’ll show you in a bit through the presentation. So staff are satisfied the proposed intensity and skill of development are in conformity with the Official Plan. So getting into form, the recommended intensification of the subject lands would optimize the use of land and public investment in infrastructure in the area. The proposed site layout locates the building at the corner. So it brings up the building to right to the corner of Southdale Road and Dundock Road toward the front of the property with reduced setbacks to create a strong street wall along these portions of the property.

[1:50:43] The parking area and landscaping are to the rear of the property, which helps provide the transitional buffer between the residential to the north and the proposed building. And the overall development uses step backs, as mentioned, in a variety of different materials and articulation to help reduce the overall massing of the buildings and create a pleasant and interesting pedestrian environment while reducing large expanses of blank walls along the streets and internal to the site. So I’ve just put on slide 12 here form. I’ve just shown you— this is the view along Dundock Drive through looking southeast.

[1:51:20] And it does show the revised height from 10 down to 7, but it shows now the 7 stepping down to 6 stepping down to 4. And this is to be sympathetic to the surrounding low density residential properties to the north. So continue on with form. The proposed form of the development has made a strong effort to maintain a skill and rhythm that responds to the surrounding land uses. The subject lands are well within the established mixed use area and well-service by public transit. Development will encourage it in intensification to make better use of existing city infrastructure.

[1:51:58] And the subject lands are also located along the arterial road, where there’s sufficient access to transit and rapid transit corridor further east on Wellington Street. I’d like to just go into bonusing with regards to this application, looking at the London plan in our tools. The type 2 bonus zoning may be applied to allow for a greater height or density in favor of a range of facility services or matters. And in the official plan under the provisions of the policy, Council may allow an increase in the density above the limit through a zoning by-law amendment.

[1:52:37] So looking at the bonus thing, they’re proposing exceptional building design. They are proposing a structured parking facility underground, and they are proposing affordable housing with regards to the transfer of ownership at no cost of four new one-bedroom condominium units to the city. I do want to just touch base quickly in the sanitary PDC. There is an existing sanitary PDC, which services 456 Southdale Road. It’s located midway from Dundalk Street across the site to 456 Southdale Road East, as shown on slide 16, that I’m looking at now.

[1:53:19] A clause has been incorporated into the recommendation by staff to ensure that any measure to address the PDC without disruption will be addressed. So through the site plan process, they will look into this sanitary PDC and incorporate it into the agreements. So our recommendation, staff’s recommendation, is to add a specific area policy into the Official Plan and the London Plan to permit this residential development with 462 units per hectare in the height of seven stories, including the mechanical penthouse.

[1:53:59] We are recommending to rezone from a service station to the residential R9 bonus zone. And we are recommending that all the special provisions be applied through the bonus zone that will permit the apartment building with special regulations. Thank you. Thank you. So if you’re from the applicant at their present and then we’ll have technical questions, is the applicant or representative present? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you, yes. Thank you.

[1:54:30] My name is John Ariens. I’m a registered professional planner with the IBI group. With me is Julia Redfern, between Julia and myself. We do have a brief presentation to make. As you’re aware, IBI has an office in London. Julie and I both work out of our Hamilton office because the developer and owner of this property is a Burlington-based mid-rise and high-rise developer. LGM development is their name. They specialize in apartments, mixed use.

[1:55:04] They have a number of projects in Burlington, Hamilton and Niagara, and we’re very pleased to now have a project before you in the city of London. I understand our PowerPoint presentation as part of your agenda. It began at the original agenda on page 333. And we just like to refer to that as we make our presentation. If I could ask you to please go to the second slide, which is an air photo of the subject property. And just to put it in context, this is a corner property on two major roadways.

[1:55:39] Southdale Road is also a transit corridor. Abutting land use, as you can see on this slide. We have commercial to the east, commercial and institutional to the south. Kitty Corner, we have the shoppers drug Mart, the medical clinic, the dental office. And across the street on Dundalk, we have an eight-story rental apartment building. You can see immediately to the north, there is a large tree buffer area. And then we have the low density, semi-detached homes on Stockton Street.

[1:56:13] So that kind of provides the neighborhood context. I would point out that transit is readily available on Southdale Road. And the site is within walking distance to many commercial uses, services, medical and dental offices. On slide three of our presentation, we just provided an overview of the technical reports and studies that were included with our submission. These dealt with servicing, transportation, parking, tree preservation. And as you can appreciate this being a former gas station, a brownfield site, environmental and soil testing was also conducted.

[1:56:53] I would like to stress that all of the studies support the proposed mid-rise residential use. There really are no technical issues, no technical concerns that would not cause this to be an appropriate form of development. Members of committee on slide four, it just provides a summary of the application process. I would like to commend planning staff. The application was deemed complete in the middle of September last year. Here it is in the middle of a pandemic and it’s only 10 months and we have a positive staff report.

[1:57:30] And it’s gone through a number of revisions. And all of the revisions I should stress were meant to address public concerns and public issues. When the matter was before your urban design peer review panel, I can also point out that this panel was extremely excited about this project. They liked the design. They liked the placement on the site. As Ms. Riley pointed out, the main mass is focused at the corner. We have a very strong street edge. It’s a very exciting design.

[1:58:05] Two revisions have been made from 10 stories to eight stories. Working with Councillor Palosa, we entertained a developer’s open house meeting, a number of residents attended. And as a result of that meeting, the original proposal was actually mixed use with commercial on the ground floor. And that has been removed and another floor has been removed. So we’re now at a seven story step design. And I will turn over to Julia to just give you a brief description of the project.

[1:58:38] Can you hear me all right? Yes. OK. So the proposed site plan and building elevation can be found on slide five and six. LGM development is proposing a seven story apartment building that steps down to six and four as it approaches the north and east property boundaries. The development comprises 181 dwelling units, two levels of underground parking, 193 parking spaces, and 206 bicycle parking spaces. Vehicular access and the building lobby entrance are proposed off of Dundalk Drive, whereas ground floor patios and residential amenity space primarily fronts onto Southdale Road East.

[1:59:19] We receive public concerns forwarded by the city and during our open house pertaining to height parking, density, massing, sun shadow, traffic, and zoning non-compliance. The presentation in the agenda goes through each of these concerns to explain how we have addressed them. So if we look at slide number eight, this is an example of a very important planning tool that we use as a guideline. This is called Angular Plane Analysis. And I’m sure most members of Planning Committee are familiar with this.

[1:59:51] And as planners, we use this as a guideline to reduce privacy and overview issues. And when we apply Angular Plane Analysis onto this project, it’s shown on slide number nine. You’ll see that there is a minor encroachment within the Angular Plane for the upper floors of the building. And this really is supportable for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the existing tree buffer that we have along our residential interface with the low density area. And that tree planting buffer will be enhanced through the site plan process with additional plantings.

[2:00:29] There are existing homes to the north, also enjoy a significant setback of over 20 meters from the property line. So there’s a substantial separation distance that isn’t really captured or reflected in the Angular Plane Analysis. And because of the encroachment that is proposed, the minor encroachment at the public information meeting that we hosted, we made a commitment to the residents that through the site plan process, those upper balconies that encroached would be treated with opaque or frosted glass.

[2:01:07] And then that will further enhance the compatibility. And together with the shadow analysis, which Julia will explain, we believe we have a compatible interface. So sun shadow studies were completed for March, June, September and December to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties throughout the year. The dark blue outline on slides 10 and 11 show the as of right six story building permission shadow versus the proposed seven story building shadow. Evidently, they are comparable and there are negligible shadows cast on the adjacent property.

[2:01:45] Slide 12 shows the preliminary landscape plan. There’s also a three meter wide landscape strip filled with trees for five privacy purposes and a 1.8 meter high wood fence between the proposed apartment building and existing dwellings to the north. There is also an approximately 10 meter yard setback proposed from the new building to the northerly property line. Currently, there are several low quality shrubs within the boulevard soft landscaping that directly interacts with the street is proposed to create a enhanced the streetscape at the intersection.

[2:02:24] So on slide 13, we deal with one of the other key issues that was raised at our open house. And that of course is transportation and parking supply. And the studies that were prepared with the original submission and following the public open house clearly demonstrated that sufficient parking is going to be provided. And on top of that, alternative transportation would reduce the demand for automobiles. We have transit right on Southdale. We have biking, we have bike parking, we have walking. All these forms of active transportation would reduce the use of automobiles and also help us address climate change.

[2:03:04] Our transportation consultants looked at the level of service on neighboring intersections. They looked at the driveway locations. They analyzed and got all accident records over a five and 10 year period. And they concluded that no remedial measures were necessary. The intersections are operating at a safe level of service and the driveway does not create. If I could just stop from all of you. I’ve been sort of indulging. You’ve gone about eight minutes now. And that’s a little longer than we normally allow. So I’m hoping you can wrap up fairly soon.

[2:03:38] I’ll go right to my conclusion. How’s that, Mr. Chair? That would be great. Thank you. I appreciate your indulgence. The last slide more or less summarizes the development and staff have included a lot of these comments in theirs. It’s more compact. It’s more efficient. It dresses climate change. It deals with alternate forms of traffic. But I think one of the most important components is the density bonusing. The fact that this developer will be donating for dwelling units, either to the city or to another nonprofit affordable housing group, I think is a significant contribution to affordable housing.

[2:04:22] And I can honestly tell you as the former chair of the Hamilton Affiliate of Habitat for Humanity, I’ve been suggesting this type of density bonusing throughout Hamilton, Halton, and Niagara for many, many years. And now finally, I have an example that I can use for other municipalities to follow. This is a great project in a great location. It’s contributing to affordable housing and it’s providing additional housing in part of London that really hasn’t experienced the same development pressures, but clearly this is an appropriate site.

[2:04:57] So those are our comments and we’d be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you, it’s technical questions from the committee, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And thank you to the applicant and to city staff. A technical question I have is around the affordable housing. I was like, first thought was, what is the percentage below market value and how long? But as I continue to read the letter from HDC, and maybe that’s a question to HDC, if you can expand a little bit more as to how these affordable housing units will operate moving forward as we approve the bonuses.

[2:05:40] Given that we really don’t know how that looks like, but I would like HDC to expand on that a little bit more. Go ahead, Stan. Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Steven, just easy speaking. I’m guessing that city staff will direct us over to myself, but I just want to confirm that first. Okay, so through you, Mr. Chair, I understand the question, was how will this work? So normally council has seen affordable housing units that are negotiated through bonusing at a percentage of average market rent, and for a certain number of years, although the conveyance or transfer of ownership was certainly a potential and is certainly something that is doable within section 37.

[2:06:36] So the normal process that we took was, of course, to confirm the lift. We do not get involved or get involved in any judgments or merit related to the proposed bonus or the proposed development at all, but specific to this case, as we were looking at the other bonusable elements and the focus on affordable housing, it was through the open conversation with the developer that the auction of a potential ownership would come up. What we also do is we make sure that the units, and as you’ve seen with the other 150 plus units that we’ve negotiated through bonusing, we always try to make sure that this will fit directly with the people who are in greatest need in accordance with our housing stability action plan.

[2:07:27] So in that respect, I spoke to the housing stability office of the city and confirmed that this was actually a very advantageous option for certain populations. So I think it’s important for council to understand that we always try to align the bonus units with priority populations, and that includes in these ownership ones. The mechanism then is that rather than getting units at a percentage of average market rent for a period of time, you’re getting a fewer number of units, albeit, but you’re getting at a much more tangible value for the proposed bonus.

[2:08:06] First of all, secondly, we would be using these as rental units, but because there is no transfer cost, then the rent would be established at a rate based on the needs of the population. So what we did in our own modeling was we factored that the units would rent at a rate suitable for a population that would mix into the building, of course, and into the community, because we always want that within our buy name list and our approach is there.

[2:08:41] But more importantly, that each unit would also provide the potential to subsidize a second unit. So in that respect, we did modeling. We ran that modeling by the city and then to the councilor’s, I think, final question within our recommendations and within our letter and then the recommendations before you, the bonus would then be activated through a, what would be a purchase and sale agreement, inclusive of all these security. So a standard purchase and sale agreement that would transfer the four units and that that would be done to the satisfaction of the city with legal noting that the rents for those units would still need to cover the costs that would be incurred by those units and including capital repair costs.

[2:09:31] And then as a final comment, the management of those units would be done in the same way as the city manages units that they have under supplement agreements. So we already have the mechanism within the housing stability office to do exactly that kind of work. I’ll thank you for that. Is it fair to say, just to follow up with that, is it fair to say that this is a new way of going to see now that we can see more of these kinds of agreements coming forward.

[2:10:05] And I guess the other part to that is, I know the applicant said that the ownership could go to the city of London or to a not-for-profit group, but I just want to confirm it is to the city of London. Through you, Mr. Chair, it is to the city of London. I will say this that the industry, I believe, the council has asked us to look at innovation, council has asked us to look at 3,000 units. We know very well that bonusing has a significant benefit in its ability to integrate affordable housing across the community and secures a commitment very early on in a development cycle.

[2:10:47] So when you’re looking at options that are available within those parameters, then yes, you will see this come forward. But noting that bonusing has a potential limited lifespan, this can also inform other planning tools that we will see as we move away from bonusing. So the notion of a conveyance is not something that is unfamiliar to council, it’s not unfamiliar to the industry. And I think what we’ve seen here already, we have heard from other bonuses that we are negotiating interest in looking at this tool. So I realize this is a new door that’s opened.

[2:11:23] And I also greatly respect council for having been with us as we’ve opened these doors. And as we keep turning those dials. So as you will know, all units that we negotiate now are minimum 50 years. All units that we negotiate now are directly attached to the population and greatest need through the by name list and through the housing stability office. We had to get to that point. So to answer councilor’s question, I think this will actually encourage more innovation. Thank you for that.

[2:12:00] And thank you for turning that dial. Are you finished, councilor? Yep. - Any other comments or questions? Technical in nature, all right? We’ll go to the public at this point in time. Is somebody in the overflow room or are we online? All online, okay. Can everyone hear me? Yes, could I get your name please? Absolutely, my name is Allison Zietzmann. I live at 441 Stockton Street. Great, so you have despite the time that’s been spent recently, you have five minutes.

[2:12:37] So I will be timing you. I should have timed some other people, but I didn’t. So you’re gonna be the first recipient and my stopwatch, unfortunately. So go ahead. I’ll do my best, okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the planning environment committee. I’m speaking on behalf of myself, my husband and a group of concerned neighbors and residents living near the proposed development site. After reading the recommendations of the city planning staff, we’re really frustrated to see that the plan, they are planning to endorse this development as proposed. And I’m appealing to the PEC to consider otherwise. While our concerns have been minimized, both by IBI group and the city planning staff, these are legitimate concerns that deserve consideration and they’re coming from lived experience.

[2:13:20] The amendments to the original proposal, we don’t feel sufficiently addressed the concerns submitted to the city. Since it was primarily just the removal of the commercial portion of the proposal, along with some height. And overall, there’s just too many amendments to the official plan being requested by IBI and LGM. The prime concern for most of the residents in the area is really the density proposed, the increase of which sets a dangerous precedent, the city and future proposed developments. The increased density has direct impact on the concerns brought up, such as traffic, safety, noise, shade, parking, and even privacy.

[2:13:59] If the proposed development is approved as planned, safety becomes a very valid concern. In particular, the Stockton Street corridor experiences heavy pedestrian traffic during rush hour, when children are walking to and from near the Bay Cleardale School. Within about 150 meters of the busy Southdale Dundalk intersection, there’s the potential for nearly 200 vehicles to be leaving this single proposed driveway at this development, as well as the parking lot for the apartment building on the Northwest corner, the townhouse development just north of that building, Stockton Street, as well as bus stops for the LTC route that proceeds up Dundalk.

[2:14:38] Traffic at that intersection, the Dundalk Southdale intersection, is already a concern without this increase, despite what the studies say, both in speed and quantity. The reports presented to you today acknowledge that our neighborhood is already of mixed density housing. The difference, the proposed development and existing multi-density housing nearby is that the existing structures are set back from other residential homes, townhouses, et cetera, and they don’t pose the same negative impact to its neighbors. Specifically, this project contains very little outdoor amenity space, which is in direct contrast to the building mentioned on the Northwest corner, which has green space and parking lots surrounding.

[2:15:21] IBI and LJM are asking for amendments to remove yard setbacks and will therefore not include that same space. And this project is completely out of scale for the property size and compared with what’s been approved to date. I’m also encouraging the PEC to consider that this developers not from this city and therefore does not have our city or residents best interest in mind with their proposal. This isn’t exciting, as has been suggested by our counselor, but demonstrates that they have no vested interest in the wellness of those directly affected by the project. In fact, at the public meeting held with IBI group, they expressed disdain for our existing bylaws and official plan and they demonstrated a lack of knowledge in our neighborhood and response to our questions.

[2:16:05] We’re well aware of the developers that are paid to the city for such projects. And we’re concerned that this is informing the planning department’s endorsement since the number of amendments being requested is unusually large for such a project. Finally, according to our own inquiries, the shade studies included do not accurately reflect what might impact the semi-detached housing to the north on Stockton Street. Since some houses will find themselves in shades the majority of the day for three to four months of the year and will only experience full sunshine for seven months of the year. In closing, I just want to clarify, we are not asking the PEC not to approve any development, but to approve a development that is within the existing neighborhood zoning of four stories or up to six with bonusing.

[2:16:48] This proposal constitutes not only excessive requests for amendments, but changes to the official plan as well. I’m hoping the PEC will consider this project is not consistent with positive development for the city and will have a negative impact on existing residents based on our concerns. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and you’re well ahead of schedule and staying within the five minutes, which the committee very much appreciates. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, is the next person on the line? I can speak next.

[2:17:27] Okay. My name is Caroline McQuinney, I live at 442 Stockton Street. Great, so you have five minutes and I’ll start the time right now. Okay, I previously had sent in in writing my concerns and commented that the file OZ9261 is aptly named as only in the land of Oz, would this be considered an acceptable application? In my world as a nurse, I wouldn’t expect any of you today in this meeting to be able to care for my patients in an ICU without extensive years of training.

[2:18:03] So in return, since I’m not an architect or an engineer, I need help in understanding this proposal. So please answer my questions. The conceptual rendering photo is a lovely picture of an apartment building, but does state it may change? Help me understand what the special provisions mean for. A minimum front yard setback of 0.0 meters, whereas 11 meters is required. Exterior side yard setback of 0.0 meters, whereas nine meters is required.

[2:18:48] Minimum, landscaped, open space, 15%, whereas 20% is required. Tell me how these requests fit the drawing that shows a tree-lined walkway. If I am correct, does this mean the actual building is built right to the lot line? I question who would want to live in an apartment that is just a few feet from a busy main thoroughfare with cars and motorcycles racing up and down the road day and night.

[2:19:25] Look around and show me any apartments that are built sitting on top of a busy street. Neighboring apartments at 380 Southdale have birds or hills as sound buffers, and they have been built years before the street became as busy as it is. Going along Southdale and commissioners, I can’t find any apartments that are so close to the road. Maybe those grandfolds apartments will be the free ones to the city for housing. That’s sad to think that.

[2:19:59] The news recorder mentioned Councillor Paloso stated that neighbors threaded about traffic, privacy, and height of the building. Wouldn’t you two fret if you had concerns for safety in your neighborhood? Having people on balconies now peer into your backyard, an initial plan of a 10 foot building on a lot made for a gas station and not one like Flying J, but a corner locked gas station. I spoke with the principal at the school in the neighborhood and it’s at Max Enrollment.

[2:20:37] So it took many years to get a permanent addition to replace the many portables. Will it mean we’re back to needing portables at Cleardale School? These presentations likely won’t make a difference based on we believe this is a done deal, but rest assured that we as a neighborhood, will voice our complaints to the city if issues present re noise, safety, crafty, et cetera arise. Thank you.

[2:21:11] Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. Again, thanks for staying well within the time parameters. Next person, right? Hi, we have two people. Could the gentleman go ahead and then we’ll- For hi, it’s Bruno DeSando. Okay. Mind Crawford Green. All right. And sorry, go ahead. So you have five minutes as I indicated and I’ll start your time now. Okay, just wanted to share with everybody where I live is closer to the intersection of Homeview Road Crawford, which is right adjacent to Nichols Arena.

[2:21:58] I’ve lived in this area for 31 years and I’m very familiar with that parcel of land, including when it was a Petro Canada gas station. Although I appreciate the city of London’s push for infill development, I disagree with this particular choice of development for this parcel of land. Although there has been the amendments made and what have you, I still don’t think that a seven story, 180 unit apartment building makes sense for that size of parcel of land.

[2:22:42] I know John shared about transit on Southdale. He failed to mention that Dundock is a major transit line, both on the east and west sides of the road. In fact, both bus stops at those locations on the northeast and the northwest corners are staging lanes where the buses wait when they’re ahead of schedule. So now we have buses that are being staged.

[2:23:17] We have a new lane way for an apartment building with approximately 180 units. And this thought that with all the transit nearby that people aren’t gonna be driving vehicles isn’t the reality that I know. So like I said, I wanted to share with you as a 31 year resident of this neighborhood and probably about a two block radius from where this development occurs is planned for, sorry.

[2:23:53] I disagree with the planned apartment building. I would have preferred to see some sort of stock townhouse or additional semi detach units or something low rise. So those are my comments and I hope committee takes not only mine, but everyone else who has spoken previous to me and after me and considered our concerns with this application, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, next speaker.

[2:24:27] Hi, I’m Claire Bertram. I live at 443 Stockton Street. Okay, go ahead. Hi, I’ve been here since 1980 and I knew when there was a petrocan in the station there and no other building. My main concerns have been voiced with everybody else is the size of the building on the size of law. It’s just too big for that size a lot. I can’t even imagine it. Even though I keep looking at the diagrams, it doesn’t make sense. And I know one of the comments made to us in our committee meeting was, oh, this is the new thing, urban skate landscaping that’s going to go right up to the sidewalk.

[2:25:07] There will be no green area well. It doesn’t fit in with anything else that’s here already. So I think my main concern is the size of the building and the size of the lot and the number of units and then how it impacts everything. And not even just in the short term, but is there a structure around? There’s a lot of building going on in this area on Warren Cliff, on Bradley, on White Oak Road, all these new housing developments. Do we have the infrastructure to even support them and then add another building and there’s some buildings going up that Bradley and Wellington supposedly.

[2:25:42] And that’s where my concern and the change is the whole thing. And do we have all the infrastructure to support the school roads and comment about Southdale? I can’t even keep my window open anymore because of the amount of traffic on Southdale. So you add another 150 car going up and down. Anyways, that’s my concerns as long as with both Alison and Carolyn and the gentleman said, along with those. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[2:26:15] Next please. Hello. Yes. Yes, my name’s Joe DeSandal. I’m representing the owner adjacent to the development at 456 Southdale Road East. Okay, go ahead. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me voice my concerns. And the first concern I have was the sanitary sewer line, which has been addressed and I thank you for that. So you’re all aware of what’s going on over there. The second concern, which is a major concern, is the parking, okay? Now we already have an issue with parking there for our tenants and the concern I see in the future there is A, with the construction vehicles parking, and B, once this development is there with tenants and visitors parking over there as well.

[2:27:01] I mean, how do we please that? Like I can’t be chasing people all the time not to be parking there, you know? So that is a major concern for myself, okay? And also thirdly, I like to talk with regards to the dust and debris from the construction. Is a developer gonna address that for all the neighbors and all the neighboring properties? ‘Cause I mean, that will be a messy project to do, okay? And lastly, I just wanna echo with what every, all the neighbors have said, I fully support them and I totally agree with all their concerns and I fully stand behind them.

[2:27:36] So those are basically the concerns I have. Thank you very much. Next, please. Good evening, everyone. My name is Dave Thompson. Thank you, Jeremy. Sorry, can you hear me? I can hear you, yes. Yep, thank you. I am not an immediate resident, but I am a longtime resident of the Clearview area and most of the concerns you’ve heard from the previous speakers, I will echo the density of this property or the units on the property is inappropriate for the size of the lot.

[2:28:27] The scale of the building, the size of the lot are just completely out of texture with the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not have anything like this in it. And in fact, if you drive the Seistale corridor from one end to the other, you will not find another property designed in this manner. And even developments that are currently in the application process are being under construction. So those are some issues that should be addressed. Some of the other things that I’d like to echo as well is in the previous, there was a gentleman on and one of the previous items saying about the lack of communication with city staff and I have find the same thing.

[2:29:11] City staff not returning calls, they had to be coerced by former council members to get back to me. And also direct to me to attempt into, they told me that information wasn’t available when in fact it was. And also, I’d also like to comment on the fact that whenever we had the meeting with IBM Group, sorry, I haven’t got that right, but the developer, we had that meeting and none of this, none of the individuals there knew each other at all.

[2:29:53] And over that time, numerous other people have made comments on their concerns, but they didn’t get notification of this meeting. Myself included. The only individuals that got notifications this meeting were the people within the 120 meter buffer. And that to me is inappropriate when we had concerns and we were not told of this meeting, we had to be told by others. City had our information and they didn’t supply us with the meeting information. So that is a major concern.

[2:30:29] As far as things go, one of the other things is that the people immediately to the north of this property are gonna be really impacted way more than myself, but the fact that they are gonna have to live with this building looming over top of them for as long as they live there. And the information provided to you by the developers for the shadow impact studies, if you were to look back at that, they strategically picked dates and times where the shadows minimized the effect that’s happening there.

[2:31:15] And if you were to do a study and I received information from someone who did a study to say as someone else mentioned there that these people are gonna be in the shadow of this building three to four months of the year. And that is inappropriate in my view. And the other thing is the developer is going to gain from this, you’ve allowed him to go from to increase the number of units and it increases his profits.

[2:31:48] The city gets the money for the units that they’re going to inherit. And I would estimate for four units at the current market value is a million dollars. You’re also going to get the ongoing, the increase in development fees for all the extra units and the taxes for years to come. And yet those residents immediate behind do not get any conversation whatsoever from this, which is just a travesty in my view.

[2:32:25] The other issue that I have is that during the construction phase, there’s going to be construction equipment here. They have to— - About 30 seconds left, sir. They have to remove at least 30 feet of earth over the entire site. And that’s going to cause major issues with construction. They have to pour a concrete and there’s nowhere to put any of the trades of vehicles. And that’s going to be a major issue just your construction, not to mention the noise and construction for the immediate area.

[2:32:58] Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, there’s another speaker. Mr. Chair, we did have one more speaker who had to leave for an appointment and she’s on her way home. She’s on her way home from Ernest as of 620. So unfortunately, I think she’s just going to miss her opportunity, but— - Okay, sorry to hear that.

[2:33:35] Yeah. Is that it then, Madam Clerk? Or do we have more speakers? All right, it appears that is all the speakers. I want to thank them all for A, speaking and B, nicely staying within the time that they were provided, that’s appreciated. So I just need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Is there anything further than I’ll call the vote? I’ll vote yes, Chair.

[2:34:08] Thank you. closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. There were some questions asked. I tried to sort of figure out which ones were rhetorical and which weren’t, but there was first an issue about staff answering requests from the public, there was some frustration in both in this application. I should say the previous one about staff responding to citizen requests for information. Does staff have any comment on that? Three, Mr. Chair, I responded to emails, letting residents know that their concerns would be incorporated into the staff report.

[2:34:46] I also spoke with many on the phone, actually for quite long periods of time going over things with them in with regards to the notice of public meeting, it was sent to the 120 meters. And I believe that it was also sent to Mr. Dave Thompson, as well I’m going to double check that, but he was involved throughout the process, so I’m sure it was sent to him. Great, thank you. There was also a question about parking and there being sufficient parking, the one gentleman expressed that concern.

[2:35:24] With regards to parking, they are providing to levels of underground parking. They are requesting a reduction in the parking rate with regards to bicycle parking, but they are providing quite a bit of underground parking and some bicycle parking along with that. I’m not sure in the spaces, I don’t have it up in front of me, but perhaps the applicant can provide more clarity on the specific state number of spaces. Okay, and then lastly, I just want to ask you about, the general question, it was asked in a rhetorical fashion, in other words, others about the side yards and such things being reduced and that the apartment being overbuilt for the lot, that it’s too big for the lot that it’s on.

[2:36:10] Can you help with that? Three years, Mr. Chair. So as a response to urban design, you can see a lot of developments are being brought up to the street to address the urban design. So this is one of them, the urban design comments were to bring the building up to the street. So they actually did that. They provided the parking and landscaping at the rear of the property to provide that transition between the properties to the north, which are the semi-detached you heard about.

[2:36:44] I’m just trying to think of the other special provisions. If you give me a moment, I can look up those and respond accordingly. Mr. Chair, it’s Michael Thomas in secure, perhaps I’ll just chime in as well. Sure. So just following along with that question, the, I believe the question was whether or not the building renderings would match the special provisions. And I do just wanna point out that as part of the bonus zone, the building renderings make up part of the bylaw. And so the applicant will be obligated to construct the building as depicted as those in the bylaw.

[2:37:20] The, just to help the interior side yard, which is 9.84 meters, that’s the yard that’s going to abut the building and the stocked in dwelling. The reductions to the front yard and exterior side yard, as Ms. Riley mentioned, those are the ones that bring the building closer to the street. And we typically reduce those because their zoning bylaw is a 1993 document, which is out of sync with our official plan. And that’s why you see that often. And then there was the question about parking. The applicant is providing slightly over one parking space per unit.

[2:37:57] So every unit has one parking space. The number of spaces is 1.06 spaces per unit. Okay, thank you very much. I think I’ve covered quite a few questions and my colleagues can pick up on any other questions that they, that I have missed. So I’ll turn it over to the committee for questions and comments. I’m going to start with the ward counselor who is here. So if you have questions or comments, go ahead counselor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair for having staff directly answer some of the resident’s questions. And for residents who attended for committees reference, Dave, Caroline and Allison all have communications within tonight’s package as they spoke as well.

[2:38:38] And the developer that is a first proposed development so that they’d actually build within the city of London, they did do the open house and was happy to see that they actually took resident feedback into consideration and resubmitted their project. We had conversations around housing. So black to see a new tool in the toolbox should committee decide to move forward with the four units. My direct questions to staff as it’s been mentioned by residents and has been an ongoing concern is the shadow study provided by the developer and some questions selected of the one within our package shows different dates and different seasons.

[2:39:18] Is staff satisfied with the shadow study and believe it to be accurate? Go ahead, stop. Mr. Chair, Michael Tom is insecure. Yes, we believe it to be accurate and yes, we are satisfied. It’s very common in shadow studies that the months of March, June, September and December are used because they illustrate the solstice and the equinox. Thank you for that. I just wanted the public as they are very engaged to make sure that it was standard dates used within the industry, not hand selected ones by the developer.

[2:39:50] School capacity has been mentioned. This is a very walkable, lovely neighborhood in the Cleardale area. And just for residents and committees, knowledge, school capacity throughout the whole city of London is being studied and reviewed at the school boards. It’s not something council and municipality controls, but it is currently being reviewed across the boards as well as boundaries. We’ll wait for that report. Hopefully this fall coming back to the community and traffic concerns within this intersection staff have told me that there are concerns have been met.

[2:40:27] Sometimes we can’t address issues beforehand, but through you to staff, residents have also asked if there’s a potential to get an advanced left turn arrows, if traffic really becomes impeded, or if there’s concerns this driveway’s proximity to the intersection, if that is a possibility that could be implemented in the future should actually be concerned with traffic staff study and look at this intersection of residents requested it. Staff? Mr. Chair, it’s Michael Thomas in secure.

[2:41:04] I’m just wondering if we have transportation staff that is able to answer that question. Hi, it’s Sarah Greedy here, transportation. I apologize, I did miss that question. Mr. Chair, I will repeat it for staff. Residents have raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed driveway in this development to the intersection in wondering if an advanced left turn traffic signal could be a possibility as they’re concerned about pedestrians and lots of children in this area crossing the road and worried about backups of people trying to get in or this developments driveway onto Southdale is a traffic study done by the city a possibility if this development moves forward.

[2:41:56] Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair, appreciate the question. Our traffic engineering group does review signal timings on a regular basis. However, in consideration of when developments are proposed, they can do additional reviews to determine when advanced lacks and things like that are required. So that request can be put through with the developments completed. Thank you for that. As residents have been concerned about pedestrian safety and just one final question as it was cited through the presentation that the development of budding the sidewalks is a newer development.

[2:42:37] And for colleagues, some of you have mass development has been happening in your words ongoing development in the South and especially where 12 is newer for us. So residents do have lots of questions and it is in Phil’s, so residents are currently there. Their neighborhood is changing. So just wondering, it was a wonderful question and it’s completely escaped me. I can come back to Councilor. We can go.

[2:43:09] Yeah, I’m going to do that. I’m going to take a little staff later if you allow it as I rethink my question. So thank you. - Don’t worry about that. I look forward to hearing colleagues come. Yeah, the committee will tell you that I forget basically where I am sometimes. So, you know, it’s not a big problem. Okay, other, let’s deal with questions right now, Mr. Mayor, go ahead. Thanks for not forgetting me, Chair. If I heard correctly, one of the things regarding this particular development is a reduction in bicycle spaces at the actual site. I want your staff to clarify what the intention is to have made available.

[2:43:46] And the second part is what are they proposing in terms of that reduction if I understood the comments correctly. And I mean, that surprises me in so far as more bikes, mean less cars, at least in certain times of the year. So I’d like to get a feel for the issue around bicycle capacity at the site place. I’ll go to staff first and then I’ll let the applicant respond if they can add information. Go ahead, staff.

[2:44:18] Through you, Mr. Chair, the reduction is to the size of the bicycle stall itself and not a reduction in parking. So they requested the bicycle parking be reduced a little bit in size, but not a reduction. I’m not, Chair, through you. I’m not sure what reduction. Can I, before we ask the applicant, could I just get clarification on what a little reduction might mean and what that means in terms of, I’ve never heard of bike crowding before, but maybe we’ll make that as a new concern.

[2:44:57] So, Mr. Chair, it’s Michael Tom is insecure. Perhaps I’ll try and clarify a little bit. It’s to the dimensions of the parking area, of a bicycle parking area, but not a reduction in the number of bicycle parking spaces. So I hope that helps to clarify. Perhaps I can add as well, Mr. Mayor, our client has come across a very unique bike racking type system, which they propose to install in the building, which minimizes the amount of space that a typical bike parking spot would require.

[2:45:33] So using this innovative racking system, we can actually put as many bikes in a slightly smaller area. Mr. Mayor, actually what that looks like, but I appreciate staff and the applicant’s representatives response, thanks. Thank you. I can also add, we’re actually providing 50 more parking spaces for bikes than what the bylaw requires. So it’s being able to make them slightly smaller and closer together. We’re able to add a few more. Councillor Layman.

[2:46:11] Thank you, Chair. Through you to staff, my understanding with the London plan is that the reduction in setback from the roadway when hand in hand with the first floor being of commercial use, am I correct in hearing that that has been changed? And just while the first floor will be residential. Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, the revised proposal that came in to address concerns did eliminate commercial and the ground floor.

[2:46:47] So why was that done? You know, we talk about the London plan a lot. And I think that that aspect of the London plan reducing the setback, again, commercial activity on the ground floor was one of the major reasons for that. So I understand the residents concerns around the area. So perhaps staff can tell me why they didn’t follow the London plan on this one. Go ahead, staff.

[2:47:21] Mr. Chair, Michael Tom is insecure. If the Council could be a little bit more specific but where we didn’t follow the London plan, that would be helpful. I can advise that right now the London plan would cap the number of stories at six rather than seven. However, that policy is still under appeal. And so we can’t use it as a determinative policy to require to cap the number of stories at six. And so for that, we have to also then rely on the 1989 official plan, which does not limit the height in for high density residential development.

[2:48:02] With your permission, Chair. Yeah, that’s not where I’m getting it. I’m not talking about the height. I’m talking about the London plans talk about reducing the setback from, you know, this is a major commercial thoroughfare. And one of the reasons for that is for commercial activity, people who are getting there not by auto but by walking or transit wouldn’t have so far to walk and wouldn’t have to walk through a parking lot to get to the commercial business that they’re going to. And I thought I heard that I was correct the assumption that the London plan did speak to that having commercial, the first floor being of commercial use.

[2:48:44] But yet this project has made that change where it’s not commercial use is strictly residential on the first floor in a very busy street. So I just want to know why that decision was made when it kind of goes against what the London plan states. Go ahead. Perhaps I can chime in here, Mr. Chair, just to answer the councilor’s question. I think, is this staff? No, it’s John Arians. I think he wants that. I think he wants staff to answer, don’t you account? One staff, yes, my apologies.

[2:49:18] Go ahead, staff. Mr. Chair, Michael Tom is insecure. In fact, the original proposal that had commercial agreed was not consistent with the London plan. And as a result, a lot of that was removed. This is a neighborhoods place type in the London plan which contemplates residential. And with regard to the setback, the London plan is equally supportive of reduced setbacks for commercial and for residential. And the intent is to create street walls along these major corridors and not push development away from the corridors. Councillor?

[2:49:56] Okay. I can come back to you. I’m getting mixed messages here ‘cause when I first asked a question, I was told I was correct. And the London plan stating that first floor activity was to be commercial. And then that was the reason for the reduced setback. Now I’m hearing that that’s not the case. The first floor is not intended for commercial. So I don’t wanna keep asking the same question. I just wanna get, you know, I heard two different answers, which is the correct answer.

[2:50:30] I think they’re saying now that it’s equally applicable. Okay, okay, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, we’ll come back if people want more questions. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. And maybe just following up on Councillor Layman’s questions around the setbacks. But before I do that, I just wanna thank the public for coming out and for the word Councillor’s comments as well. I do have a couple of questions from what we heard at the, from the public, setbacks are a concern. And one of the comments I heard was that we’re doing 0.0 setbacks like going right to the boundary.

[2:51:12] When I read the recommendation, the setbacks we’re looking at for yard setbacks and exterior in particular is 1.0, not 0.0, but when we look at the balconies, we are looking at 1.05. And I would like to go through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, just to clarify, I know I’ve seen these tight setbacks before. So it’s not unusual, but I’d like to know a little bit more about the concerns with her from the public on the setbacks.

[2:51:47] And if they have any concerns given that, that really tight, tight boundary to the road or wherever they’re going. And then you’ve got these balconies. So first question. Go ahead, staff. Three, Mr. Chair, I just wanna clarify. So there is a special provision for 1.0 meters. And that is to at the corner of Dundalk and Southdale, there’s a daylight triangle there that’s transportation looked at.

[2:52:25] And that 1.0 meters is for that daylight triangle. So I’m not sure what page in the report this is on, but the site plan actually shows the daylight triangle at the corner. And that 1.0 is for that daylight triangle. Thank you for that clarification. As well, I’d like to follow up on amenity space. We heard from the public concerns about that. It’s a stick to the amenity space a little bit more. Three, Mr. Chair, there is amenity space along the rear of the property.

[2:53:02] And the applicant has also proposed amenity space on top of the building. If you look at the site plan in the middle, you’ll see a large section of amenity space that’s touched through. I don’t know if it’s clear on your ends, but in the middle, there’s a large portion of amenity space on top of the building. Do we know what that amenity space will look like on top of the building? Three, Mr. Chair, I don’t know. I think that’s going to be dealt with more through the site plan approval process, but perhaps the applicant can shed some light on that.

[2:53:37] Sure, is that okay, Councilor, if the applicant sheds light on it? Councilor Hopkins, would you like the applicant to tell you what the amenity space is? I think you could be addressed to the site plan. All right, thank you. And just my last question. Sure, go ahead. Back to what we heard from the public. It’s around transit. I just want to make sure this is a transit route. I did hear that this is a staging area, but if anyone, I know we probably don’t have anyone from LTC, but I just want to confirm, given the intensity of this development, that it is on a direct transit route.

[2:54:14] Through you, Mr. Chair, as mentioned in my presentation, the subject lands are located along an artillery road, and there is sufficient access to transit, and the rapid transit corridor, which is further east on Wellington Road. Okay, Councilor Hillyer? Yes, further comments, did by the public. I believe it was Mr. Santos talking about visitor parking. I’m looking at the map.

[2:54:47] And is this seven-story building only have five visitor parking spaces? Mr. Chair, Michael Tom is into here. So the zoning by-law doesn’t distinguish between visitor and tenant parking spaces. It’s just a requirement for a certain number of spaces per unit. And then among those, they’re distributed between guest and tenant. So in this case, there is more than one parking space per unit proposed. It’s 1.06 parking spaces. And forgive me without doing the math.

[2:55:20] I’m not sure how many above and beyond that would be above the tenant parking, but there is more than one parking space per unit proposed, and the zoning by-law doesn’t distinguish between the two. That’s underground parking, and this is above-ground parking for visitors. You’d like me to ask the applicant whether they can tell you how many visitors are parked. Yes, please, thank you. The applicant knows how many visitor parking spots outside of the indoor parking that are there. So the site plan shows surface parking of those five spaces.

[2:55:58] There’s actually quite a bit more so on the revised concept. I’m just trying to pull that up on my part as well. Sure, go ahead. Take your time. It’s just, it’s very tiny to see. Yes, I’m one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 visitor parking spots are proposed on the surface, with the balance will be in the underground parking garage. One of the other things that our client will be doing is they unbuckle the parking from the actual unit when they sell them to individual condominium purchasers.

[2:56:37] So for an elderly person who perhaps doesn’t have a vehicle, they don’t have to purchase a parking spot, with the proximity of transit and the walkability, unbuckling, the parking is pretty well common in most condominium projects like this. And as a result, I think we have the right ratio of parking to units. Okay, I was just seeing some. When I see seven stories and now they’re 10 spaces, that just seems like it’ll be filled up very quickly.

[2:57:12] And again, sir, those visitors will have the ability to go into the underground parking area, where they’ll be kind of accorded off and secure visitor parking as well. And how many spots indoors are visitor? The total parking being provided is 193 spaces. And of that, how many are visitor, how many are tenant? So again, with the unbuckling or unbundling of the parking with the actual unit, it’ll range somewhere between 15 to 25 visitor parking spots.

[2:57:50] Any other questions, Councillor Hillier? Thank you. Any other questions before we start with comments? You had another question, Councillor Palosa, or is it okay now? Councillor Lehman got to it, so I’m good, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so we’ve asked our questions, and now we’re into debate, and I’ll just let the committee start, and any motions that are made can be made in the course of that.

[2:58:22] Councillor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, to keep us focused, what I’m gonna do is put the staff recommendation on the floor, and so then we can discuss whether or not to advance that. So I’ll see if I have a seconder, and then I’ll share a couple of comments. Is there a seconder for the staff recommendation, please? The mayor has seconded to it, so we’ve got the staff recommendation on the floor, and now we’ll go with speakers, and I’ll let Councillor Lewis start off.

[2:58:59] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I’ll share that I’ve heard from some residents about this proposal since, well, since last year, when it was a 10-story proposal. So I’m much happier to see it coming back at seven. I think the step backs on the north side certainly go a long way to reducing the shadow concerns. I’ve heard a lot of concerns about traffic volume, and I’ve shared including with the resident who was concerned about the traffic on Dundalk in particular.

[2:59:37] That certainly, as this development proceeds, if it proceeds as planned, there’s an opportunity for the community to petition for traffic calming, and that is a process that we leave up to the neighborhood. So that’s certainly something that can be pursued if there’s concerns about pedestrian safety is looking at traffic calming measures. I know Councillor Palosa indicated an advanced green potential in the future, and I’ve certainly found staff have been willing to work with me on that in my award, so I’m sure that they would do the same with her in this instance if it bears out.

[3:00:15] But I do think it’s important to note that not every resident in this building is necessarily going to have a car, and so we may not be talking about potentially the volume of traffic that people might be fearing. I should note I took a look at the traffic volume charts on the city’s website, and Dundalk is seeing approximately 3,500 vehicle trips a day, so if we’re talking about 200 additional, that’s going to put it at 3,700. Well, that’s still in the realm of a secondary collector level of volume, so it’s not really altering the class of the road in terms of how we would approach traffic.

[3:00:56] So with these things in mind, I want to shift my last bit of comments to particularly the bonusing and the RGI housing. I really want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Gostizia and staff who worked with the developer on this. This is actually the kind of thing I would like to see much more of, where we’re looking at RGI units in buildings that are going ahead through the private sector, and looking at a way to do that in helping address our need for those 3,000 plus affordable housing units that the mayor has set the goal for us to try and achieve over the next five years, so I’m really pleased to see that.

[3:01:38] Moving ahead, I mean, I think that this is a development that has come a long way from what I saw initially back in 2020, and while I recognize that change is hard for a neighborhood, change is definitely going to happen here, and it’s not going to be townhouses. It’s gonna be something more dense than that given the volume of the Southdale corridor and then the desire to have the infill along those high volume corridors.

[3:02:12] Certainly, I’m gonna keep a listen to any thing that the ward councilor might want to have. I don’t know if there’s a desire to have an H5 on this for some additional public feedback on the site planning portion, whether that’s appropriate or not, but I think that where we are now is a good compromise from where it started, so I’m gonna support it. Thank you. Other comments, Councillor Hopkins? You’re still muted, Councillor.

[3:02:48] You think I’d learn by now? Just before I make my comments, I would like to hear from the ward, Councillor. I’m gonna leave that up to her, whether she wants to speak before you. I’m happy to speak before and after if other one has other questions. And regards to if the comments are disregarding potential holding provision, residents’ concerns would come around traffic, traffic flow and construction, the staging areas of what the plans are.

[3:03:21] Tree loss is another concern. There are some trees along the north end of the property that they’re concerned about keeping. And it was mentioned in the presentation, the property balconies on the north side facing the building to make sure that there was some sort of frosted glass put into those balconies by the developer. That was the major concerns as per the development should committee decide that it moves forward. That would be in the municipal jurisdiction. Thank you for that.

[3:04:00] And I too would like Councillor Lewis would encourage our holding provision given the amount of concerns that exist in the community still. So I will leave it up to the committee if they would like to do that, but I would be very supportive of doing that. I am supportive of the recommendation moving forward. I think the bonuses in this underutilized area, we’re gonna get something, we’re gonna get something that’s intense, the underground parking, that affordable housing right here to income is something that I definitely can support and hope to see a lot more of that moving forward.

[3:04:40] The fact that it’s on an arterial road, it is important as well, having transit support this development, the setbacks. I know they’re close. That’s how we build in the city. If you look around the city of London, we see a lot of these smaller setbacks. And just my last comment as well, I really do think that the community should be part of this process. That holding provision will allow those questions and concerns when they speak to the amenity space.

[3:05:18] I think that’s something moving forward and just the safety, the general safety of movement in this area is something that if heard loud and clear is important to the community and would encourage them to be involved. Do any members of the committee have an objection to an H5, we could do an amendment or we could just add it as part of the main motion? Does anyone object to that? Given that the ward councilor has indicated, has indicated that she supports that? No, then we’ll just add that in and so we won’t have further debate on that unless someone objects.

[3:05:55] So I’ll just go to further comments. Doesn’t appear that there are any additional comments. So we have a mover and a seconder for the motion and we’re going to add an H5. So has that been done? We were good, that’s been added. So I’m just going to call the vote. Carol, yes. Thank you, ma’am. closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[3:06:34] It’s almost seven o’clock, we haven’t had a break yet. It’s been three hours. So my suggestion is we have maybe a 15 minute break, just give people a chance to stretch their legs and whatever people do on a break. So do I need a motion for that or can I just, we’ll just do it by hand. Can we have a motion, just I’ll move it and Councillor Lewis will second it for a 15 minute. Redecess, we will return at 7.15, all in favor? Great, we’re adjourned for 15 minutes, thanks everyone. We’re at 7.15, so we’re going to go back and we have, do we?

[3:24:26] Councillor Hopkins, I was looking for and— We have quorum. So we’re going to go back into our meeting. The next matter on the list is a public participation meeting with regard to 180 to 186 commissioners road west and I’ll need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. There’s nothing further, I’ll call the vote. Although yes, Chair. Thank you. Am I on the wrong?

[3:25:20] Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you and I understand we have quorum staff, am I correct? Yes, Mr. Chair, that’s correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Barb Debert. What we have before us is an application for an official plan and zoning by-law amendment affecting lands at the southeast corner of Commissioners Road West and by-count road. The proposal includes the demolition of the two existing single detached dwellings and the construction of a four-story apartment building with 40 residential units at a density of 105 units per hectare.

[3:25:59] Land uses to the south include single detached dwellings and Commissioners Road is characterized by a mix of multiple family housing forms and commercial uses. The land is in the neighborhoods place type in the London plan, which permits the requested use with a maximum height of four stories without bonusing. In the 1989 official plan, the lands are designated multifamily medium density residential permitting the proposed use to a maximum of 75 units per hectare to 100 units per hectare with bonusing. Since the London plan is not fully enforced for this site, city staff initiated an amendment to the 1989 official plan to align the policies with the London plan.

[3:26:43] In particular, this change was to allow a maximum density of 105 units per hectare and to ensure that the city design policies of the London plan are applied to the site. The recommended zoning bylaw amendment supports the key directions of the London plan, including providing for a compact, contiguous pattern of growth that looks inward and upward in fill in the intensification that uses existing services and ensuring a mix of housing types within neighborhoods. Overall, the proposal satisfies the planning impact analysis of the 1989 official plan and the evaluation criteria for planning and development applications in the R tools part of the London plan, pardon me.

[3:27:26] With respect to design, the location and massing of the proposed building are consistent with urban design goals. The building is proposed to be situated close to the intersection of Commissioners Road West and Viscount Road, defining the street edge and encouraging a street oriented design with ground floor entrances facing the street. The preliminary building design includes building articulation, rhythm, materials, fenestration and balconies along Commissioners Road West. Parking is located to the rear of the building, providing adequate separation between the proposed building and the property to the south.

[3:28:02] The adequate space is also provided for buffering and screening between the proposed building and the parking area and the rear yards of the proposed properties, or sorry, of the properties to the east. This is not a bonusing application, so more detailed design will be completed through the site plan approval process, including improved building design features along the Viscount Road frontage to better address the intersection. In addition to concerns about the proposed intensity of development, members of the public raised concerns regarding additional and cumulative traffic impacts and stormwater management control in an area that currently experiences basement flooding and water issues at the intersection of Commissioners Road West and Viscount Road during some storm events.

[3:28:49] With respect to traffic, the traffic impact study that was submitted with the application concluded that the signalized intersection of Viscount and Commissioners Road West is currently performing at a good overall level of service and that the signalized intersection has sufficient capacity to accommodate growth. Following further review of the study in the context of public concerns regarding queuing cars blocking access to existing driveways and to the proposed new development, city staff have identified the need for further consideration of traffic controls to mitigate potential traffic impacts.

[3:29:25] This additional evaluation will occur at the site plan approval stage, and it’s included as a future consideration in the staff recommendation of this report. The preliminary servicing report submitted with the application concluded that the storm connection will need to be made to the Commissioners Road sewer as the Viscount Road sewer does not have any excess capacity. Additionally, below grade storage will be required on site to attenuate the two to 250 year storm events. During the site plan approval process, the city will require stormwater flows to be contained on site.

[3:30:03] A stormwater runoff from the subject lands is not permitted to cause any adverse effects to adjacent or downstream lands. In response to one particular concern of an immediate neighbor, the location and design of snow storage areas to prevent snow melt onto adjacent properties has been identified in the staff recommendation as a matter to be considered at the site plan approval stage. Specific consideration was also given to the provision of appropriate privacy fencing and vegetative screening adjacent to the existing single detached lots.

[3:30:37] Some trees were removed from the property prior to completion of the tree preservation report and many remaining trees along the East property boundary proposed to be retained are in poor condition and may impact the ability to construct privacy fencing. Earlier this month, the applicant commenced discussions with the abutting neighbors regarding fencing and buffering. With the expectation, these discussions would continue and any satisfactory solutions be incorporated into a future site plan application and approval process. This expectation is also reflected in the staff recommendation. The staff recommendation is for approval of an amendment to the 1989 official plan to allow a maximum density of 105 units per hectare and a zone change from a residential R1 zone to a residential R9 zone with special provisions to permit the proposed 40 unit apartment building.

[3:31:31] Staff is satisfied that the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and is in conformity with the policies of both the London plan and the 1989 official plan. Thank you and staff are available to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Hello, is the applicant online? Mr. Chair, it’s Matt Campbell from Zalen Capriamo. Can you hear me?

[3:32:03] Yes, I can hear you now. So if you’d like to go ahead, that’d be great. Wonderful, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. With me tonight is Kamal Baroudi, the developer on this project. So we’ve been working on this file for some time and thanks to staff for the verbal presentation there. Staff have been quite helpful in processing this application. I’d like to point out that staff were extremely helpful in helping us consult with the public as well as was mentioned at the end there. So this is a development that we’re quite excited about, a four-story building at the corner of Commissioners Road and Viscount.

[3:32:38] As was noted, there will be some design changes through the site plan approval process reflecting similar comments that were received both from staff and from the urban design peer review panel. And we’re working on those at this time. There is a significant road widening that has to be taken into account here for the widening of Commissioners Road West. So that has been taken into account. That’s why we have the site layout that we do. One thing that I would like to point out for the committee’s consideration is that there is a large area around the periphery of the site due to the odd lot lines that we have to work with.

[3:33:17] The parking arrangement doesn’t line up with the lot lines. And that has resulted in larger than expected or larger than normal landscape setbacks that we can use to plan a significant amount of trees that would enhance the privacy for the neighbors. As staff mentioned, we did consult with the neighbors in the area. And that was one of the primary concerns that we heard was the landscaping, fencing, and how this development was going to be offered. And I believe those discussions were quite positive.

[3:33:50] We took some points away that we’re gonna work through through the site plan approval process. And I think it was largely a positive discussion. In terms of the London plan, this is right up the London plans alley in terms of height, scale, density. That was being suggested from that plan. And that’s where we took our cues from in this proposal. I think staff did an excellent overview of the development. If there are any questions that a committee or public has for us, we’d be happy to answer them. Thank you very much.

[3:34:25] From the committee, any technical questions for either staff or the applicant? There being none, we will go to the public. I just would like you to speak. Hello. Hi, you’re in the meeting now. Could I have your name, please? Paul and Sutton. All right, Mr. Sutton, you will have five minutes and I’ll start your time now and you can go ahead.

[3:34:59] Thank you. Just a few concerns. I did address them in the email earlier to Deb regarding. Now it was brought up just in the conversation here that they did an assessment at the intersection that said that there wasn’t any issue. But that assessment had to have been done before the seven-story building that’s going there up now. So we still don’t know what kind of impact at that intersection that seven-story building is going to dump into that intersection, which is already overstressed.

[3:35:39] The other one is the parking that is being applied. They don’t even have enough parking spots for the tenants or the tenants there, let alone, I think there’s only four visitor spots. So where is all the extra parking going to be done is going to have to be overflowed onto the Viscount Road. Now, Viscount Road is also a main pedestrian traffic area for all the kids going to the two schools directly up the street. There’s already an increase in the amount of pedestrians coming across that intersection now.

[3:36:17] You start adding parked vehicles there and the way that some of these drivers in the city like to drive, and it’s just a recipe for disaster. Personally, for our own, ‘cause I’m right on literally on the corner of Viscount and commissioners. And we can’t even get out of our driveway now as it is. I think it would be nice if the city took into consideration for at least there to be an X spot in the turning lane there to give us a chance to at least get out, especially if they seem bound and determined to go ahead with this complex.

[3:36:59] Personally, I believe that we’ve already done our part in the intensification and the infill for this area. We’ve already had a couple of apartment buildings directly across the street go up right behind them. There’s two more already going there. This is a nice, quiet neighborhood or was. It doesn’t really need another apartment building stuck in the middle of on this side. I think we’ve done our share for that. And I guess that’s it all wrap up early.

[3:37:32] So you guys don’t have to stay late. Thank you very much. We appreciate your input tonight. Next speaker. Hi, we’re Laura and Reagan’s all this at 549 Viscount rode across from the site proposal. Okay. Prior to buying, I’m sorry. Go ahead. Okay, prior to detached house, we researched the bylaws for the lots in question and saw clarity from the city on future development. We understood that a multi-residential building could go on that corner.

[3:38:07] A three-story building with green space, a driveway at the municipal address that commissioners rode, an adequate parking for tenants and guests, wouldn’t reduce access to a driveway, violate our privacy or cook pedestrians at risk in our school zone. We trusted city of London would not amend those bylaws and endanger our property and our lives. Doning laws exists for the wellbeing of the community and apply equally to owners, developers and government. Yeah, if a homeowner asked to increase the size of their house and encroaching to the regulated exterior side yard depth by 46%. And 49 into the interior, city of London would say no.

[3:38:45] If they proposed increasing the approved height and adding balconies, that hung a foot and a half from the sidewalk, city of London would say no. If they were on a corner and wanted to pave over their entire yard and build a triple wide driveway on the adjacent street, city of London would absolutely say no. So why are we here? The goals of the rapid housing and building a sustainable city aren’t to squeeze people onto a tiny law. It isn’t to design oversized buildings with balconies perched to half meter from major road. It isn’t to add fiscal barriers at intersections that reduce drivers visibility and endanger pedestrians.

[3:39:22] It certainly isn’t to make the prejudicial and elitist assumption that families, caregivers and guests won’t have cars to park. It’s to provide affordable homes for people to live with dignity and safety. Intersections are where conflict occurs. Moving the access point of buy-count from the municipal address will escalate current dangers at that intersection. Prior to COVID restrictions, we had local traffic, vehicles ushering children to school and drivers using buy-count as a shortcut. Our speed limits are seldom obeyed.

[3:39:55] The seventh story beat a living building of determinants of buy-count is nearing completion. Its occupancy will significantly increase traffic congestion. At the intersection, buy-count has a short left turn lane, a right turn lane and twice daily a school crossing guard to stop inpatient drivers from turning into the crosswalk. Now the entrance to VITA is at the terminus. Before proceeding through the intersection, cars and delivery vehicles will have to wait at the light on buy-count. No vehicle behind will be able to turn right onto commissioners. Traffic will back up and prevent access to left turn lane.

[3:40:32] If city of London agrees to this site concept, you’ll add another access road on the southeast corner, less than 35 meters from the intersection. Vehicle’s exiting commissioners onto buy-count will have to turn left access at site. And there’s no road space to add a turn lane. Visualize that during peak times when COVID restrictions and as they sit up view car lengths during the busy intersection waiting to turn left, vehicles and buses won’t be able to turn off commissioners. At peak times, one car waiting to go straight into VITA living and one car trying to turn left into this proposal will bring north and southbound traffic on buy-count to a standstill.

[3:41:13] Public transit will be immobilized. Ambulance police and fire trucks won’t be able to navigate the congestion and vehicles won’t have space to provide clearance. Life-saving moments will be lost for people near the junction and in our school zones. VITA living will be fully occupied this winter. Before adding more traffic to the intersection, conduct a due diligence investigation into the statistical reality of that occupancy without COVID restrictions limiting traffic. Then do a traffic impact assessment.

[3:41:47] Without due process to measure defined traffic changes at the terminus of buy-count, it’s impossible to assure the community that a second gateway out buy-count won’t increase in judgment. You have one minute remaining. Estrian risk and cause reduction, road efficiency and driveway access. Alternatively, decrease city abundance, future liability and financial impact. Design the size appropriate building with access off commissioners. Yes, scaling back will cause rentable units, but families gain standard living, drivers pedestrian homeowners gain safety at that intersection.

[3:42:21] How much is even one life worth? Children have low impulse control and slow reactionary skills. They lack the cognitive development to recognize pedestrian risk and time. Inpatient drivers made tragic mistakes, especially at intersections. Please put public safety first. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, speaker, go ahead. Okay.

[3:43:07] Yeah, your name please. So my name is Sean Collins. I’m not sure if I’m in the right spot in the line, but I’m a resident at 545 Viscount right across from the proposed development. Okay, go ahead, sir. Thank you. Okay. So I’d just like to say that I very much agree with what the other residents have brought up. There seems to be very much a consistent safety term. You’re fading in and out, sir. Right. Can you hear me now? I can hear you now, yes.

[3:43:39] Okay. I’m trying to get closer to the computer. So there’s a lot of consistency with what the residents have raised and I’m very much in agreement with that. Not agreeing with the height of the building. I think that it’s very much too high. Not very much too high, but definitely too high for the area on Viscount that it will immediately impact. If you were only considering it to be a commissioner’s road address, then perhaps the vision of the height would be different, but as it’s on the corner and the proposed entrances on Viscount and the city’s recommendation to the developer was to even move the main entrance of the building to Viscount.

[3:44:23] It’s very much more of a Viscount address than it would seem to be a commissioner’s address. And with all of the other single family homes in the area surrounding it, the height and the volume of units, in my opinion, seem to be excessive. Something of a lower unit, unit-perhector standard, I think would be much more applicable. I don’t see why there would be a requirement to approve that increase when a lower unit-perhector standard was what was in the previous plan or regulation, whatever it was.

[3:45:06] Additionally, the parking, although the city in their report stated that it was common to have a one-for-one parking requirement or parking allotment, the size of the parking spaces and the lack of any additional ones, it seems unnecessary. I think it’d be much more a much nicer development, much more in line with the characteristics of the neighborhood.

[3:45:44] If there was a little more ample parking and a little less units for the space, additionally, there’s a removal of a city tree on that’s proposed, which is quite a large tree. It would also provide quite a bit of a cover or privacy rather for any development that would go up there. So I don’t think that that tree should be removed. And then I additionally just have just a couple of questions.

[3:46:19] The first question was what was planned for the units themselves or are they planned for rental or for sale? And the second question was why the layout of the unit seems to all only be single-bedroom suites for the entire development. So those are the two questions and then those are all of my points as well. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Hi, can you hear me?

[3:46:58] I can hear you. Yep, and your name? My name is Carol Stewart. Okay. And I’m taking the spot. (mumbles) Go ahead. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. I’m Carol Stewart and I’m calling on behalf of my family at 2-2-3, How Do You Have New West? Our property, the back of our property line is the new development or the proposed development. I’d like to start by acknowledging our neighbors. You have put a lot of thought and expertise into their communications with you previously and here today and who are also willing to share as part of a community.

[3:47:37] Many of them who have been watching since 5 p.m. So, God bless you all for the time you put into this committee. Thank you also to Barb Debert, City Planner, who helped to, I think, re-establish some of the lines of communications with the planners and contractors. Mike and Kamal, who are representing them here today. And Barb particularly listened to our concerns and our expertise. And I think some of this is reflected in the updated report. So my primary reason for calling in is to reiterate the concerns and issues of my neighbors, some of whom you’ve heard from already, but also their submissions are contained within your package.

[3:48:16] And also to see if you have any questions for us. In short, we believe that most of these concerns would be at least partially resolved by reducing the scale of this development, by reducing the number of units, and to build an apartment building that’s more aligned with all of the other sort of two to three story apartments along the south side of commissioners between Viscount and Andover. There are a lot of tall buildings going up on the north side, but at least there’s sort of a consistency in a character to which we obviously have become accustomed.

[3:48:49] A couple of points from my own experience, I would again speak to the traffic at the intersection of Viscount and commissioners. It’s already terrifying. Somebody who drives my car too there, and as somebody who walks an eight-year-old child, the school at a block away, we avoid that intersection as much as possible will take the back roads. You’ve seen and heard the evidence or the anecdotal evidence, at least the neighbors have communicated around that. Please be very careful as the city, how you manage this new driveway and what it means for how traffic is controlled, because it feels dangerous now, and I only anticipate it getting worse.

[3:49:35] The second point that I would speak to in terms of our own family’s experience with this development is that from the start, this has felt very heavy-handed and non-transparent. Last year in June 2020, the new property owner essentially clear-cut all of the urban forest corridors that was along the back of our backyards. Without an honest or transparent tree assessment or preservation plan, certainly there was no consultation. For more than a year, our homes and my neighbors’ homes who have several of them who’ve lived there for 30, 40 years, have been subjected to scorching sun and heat, increased flooding from the deforestation of these many mature trees along with corridor, the loss of privacy and significant increases in noise, light and dust pollution.

[3:50:28] As other scholars have mentioned, there are other construction, major construction apartment buildings going up in near vicinity. My appeal to you is also being the Forest City’s Environment Committee in between the planning committee. Please do not ignore deliberate efforts to obfuscate poor tree stewardship. And I appreciate Matt timing in earlier, recognizing that they’re going to be significant efforts to replace the tree corridor. However, I think if we’re saying that this feels like we were, it feels like a bit of a scam, no offense, Matt.

[3:51:07] We understand city directives to establish— You have one minute left. Thank you. We understand city directives to establish more housing options. In turn, we want you and the developers and the rest of the city council to understand and respect the character and concerns of our neighborhood, particularly the ones we share for our neighbors and their family’s safety. We want our new neighbors who move into this development or other development in our neighborhood to inherit a neighborhood which prioritize the safety and character so they too can enjoy as much as we do.

[3:51:42] We appreciate you clicking the time to listen to us. And of course, as I think of the community and as respondents and participants, we’re happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Yes, but I have your name, please. Yes, my name is Marty Peterson. Okay, you have five minutes. You’re in front of the committee, so go ahead.

[3:52:15] Yes, I’m about 5.5 to Viscount Road, almost a budding to the property line, sort of a small green space between mine and their fence. There are a few issues that I’d like to raise in regards to this building. For one, you did not at all take into consideration when you did your assessment of traffic flow, the 75 unit building going up directly across from the intersection at Viscount. You also did your assessment during a pandemic when we were in lockdown, therefore skewing the numbers horrendously.

[3:52:56] The sight line was done in the middle of winter when there is no foliage on trees, greatly obscures your sight lines. Removal of a very well established tree is laughing for the forest city. The light noise that will be created from this backyard overseeing us and the neighbors on high view will be horrendous. The tree removal, as I already mentioned, was done without any consultation or I would put percent the fact that it was probably done illegally.

[3:53:35] The infrastructure itself, you’re wanting to change from 12 meters to 14 meters. You’re wanting to change to one parking spot instead of 1.25. All these things, nothing would indicate that there is a necessity in this area. Our three-four building would be more than sufficient for this neighborhood, as is already seen in missionaries on our south side already with many of them there that have been old problems.

[3:54:10] The application to put in a wooden fence around the property has no validity towards sound abatement. Property values will drastically drop right away. Entering onto Viscount would be totally ridiculous for the traffic flow. You have a street address of commissioners and now you want to change it over to Viscount entry. It makes no sense at all.

[3:54:46] The parking structure itself only allows for 40 units and 40 parking space. There is no parking allowed anywhere else. You’re not allowed overnight parking during the winter on our street. You’re directly across from a bus stop. So then you’ll have people coming and going in and out from a bus stop and trying to traverse across an area where there’s traffic coming out first thing in the morning. These are just some of the things that we’ve mentioned in letters that haven’t really been addressed at this point and I’ll end it there, thank you.

[3:55:23] Thank you, next speaker. Hello, can I get the next speaker? Mr. Chair, I believe that’s all of the remote participants that we had for this item. There are none in the overflow room or over, that appears to be the public submission.

[3:56:03] So I’ll need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hillier unless there’s something more, we will close the public participation meeting. I will support closing chair. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[3:56:40] All right, there were a few questions raised. Some staff could try to respond. There were questions about the assessment of the effect of the development on the intersection and people were mentioning that it was done before another unit, a 75 unit building went up in the area. I wonder if you could help with that at all, Steph? Thanks, Sarah. Grady here from Transportation Engineering. Through you, Mr. Chair, certainly when developments are proposed, we provide all background information, other development proposed in the area.

[3:57:14] I don’t know the timing off hand when this file came in relative to the other one. I guess just generally speaking in consideration the location of the other development, majority of the movements would be from two from the other side of the intersection. And I understand the majority of concerns for this site are both the queuing on by count. So it would not be anticipated to have a significant impact on that queuing concern. Thank you. The next, there seemed to be a question about from the first speaker about the turning lane and his ability to get out of his driveway.

[3:57:50] I wonder if someone can help with that. Sure, I can answer that after you, Mr. Chair. The, I appreciate the concern certainly in new neighborhoods. We don’t permit accesses within 60 meters at the intersection such as this. Obviously this is an existing condition. When these can’t be avoided, again, this is a new neighborhood thing developed which usually put in a median island down the center of the road. So it would actually permit that left turn out. This being an existing condition, we would not go in and retrofit something like that.

[3:58:28] It would cut people off and pull access from their driveway. But I guess I would make the same recommendation we would if that was in there that would be preferred for them to turn out, right? And then turn around where there’s a safe place to do so. Okay. And there was any questions about parking where extra parkers would go given the number of parking spaces that are with the building. And that was expressed as a concern. What do you want to help with that?

[3:59:02] Yes, Mr. Chair, it’s Barb, Deborah. So with respect to the parking, it has been pointed out already that this property is at the corner of Bicount Road, which is a collector road and commissioners, which is an arterial, which does have bus service. We would have an expectation that, first of all, not necessarily every person who would be living in the building or every unit would require a vehicular access. It has become quite common to reduce parking rates for apartment buildings from one and a quarter spaces per unit to one space per unit, which is what this application is proposing.

[3:59:48] All right. And then the question, maybe the applicant can answer this. There’s a question about the layout of the actual units, why they’re primarily one bedroom. I don’t know if you can answer that. Mr. Chair, it’s Matt Campbell here again. The idea behind the primarily one bedroom units, and that was provided on the site plan that was provided by various floors. I can’t hear you now. Oh, my apologies. The floor plans were provided as part of the submission materials.

[4:00:21] There are a number of two bedroom units that are on the ground floor. The remainder are the majority of them are one bedrooms. And that was a marketing decision by the developer responding to their perceived market demand for this particular. Okay, thank you. I’ll turn it over to committee now for questions. We’ll start with questions and then move on to comments and any motions. Are there questions? No questions. So we’ll move to, do you have a question, Councillor? Sorry, Councillor Hopkins, do you have a question?

[4:00:57] Yeah, go ahead. - Yes, I agree. Go ahead. I know some of the comments we heard from the public were about the access to this property and why it’s not a commissioners. I wonder if staff could speak to that, please. Go ahead, staff. That’s by account versus commissioners. Through you, Mr. Chair, we did review the potential for an access off of commissioners. If being our tier road, we are required to minimize accesses off there for operational concerns and safety. If there was to be an access allowed off of commissioners, it needs to be at least 75 meters away from the intersection, which is not feasible based on the site layout and the size of the parcels.

[4:01:40] When that can’t be achieved, it has to be restricted to a right and right out, which would need to be done by extending the center median on commissioners, which would impact the access to other driveways on the other side of commissioners. So I guess, consistent with my earlier point where we generally try not to impact existing accesses. Thank you, Matt. If I may, Mr. Chair, I just— Sure, go ahead. You’ve disappeared off the screen.

[4:02:11] That’s why I was hesitating for a second. You have another question? No, sorry, wrong button again. Go ahead. Just for myself, echo, sorry. I do have a question around the tree preservation plan. If staff can speak to that, given that some trees came down before the EIS was done, and we are an environmental committee, for sure. If we can have a better understanding on how this tree preservation going to take place moving forward, I appreciate the applicant’s comments about wanting to work with the community.

[4:02:50] And there is some opportunities for the tree planting to create more of a border buffering given the setbacks are further away. So if staff can just speak to that tree preservation plan, just understanding what trees are coming down and how we move forward. Thank you. Go ahead, staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, this is Barb again. We have actually included a couple of clauses in the recommendation clauses for council’s consideration.

[4:03:26] Under item C, I think it’s six and seven. Talk about the provision of privacy fencing. In this particular case, the fencing and the trees are an interconnected issue, because a lot of the trees that are existing along that part, the East property line, are growing through the fence, the existing chain link fence that’s there. So that’s why I had encouraged the applicant to sit down and speak with the neighbors about what their preferences might be in terms of that tradeoff between being able to provide a full privacy fence and providing robust landscaping or the preservation of existing trees.

[4:04:10] So I agree with Matt. I think that the discussions that were had were very helpful. We certainly didn’t come to any resolution during those discussions. But through the site plan process, we would be asking that the, first of all, that the provision of privacy fencing would be coordinated with any tree retention on or adjacent to the property lines. And that secondly, that the provision of enhanced robust landscaping along the East and South property boundaries be take place for screening, taking into account possible compensation for trees removed from the site prior to the preparation of the tree preservation report, discussions between the applicant and the neighboring property owners and the submission of a final tree preservation report.

[4:04:57] So we were really counting on the site plan process and a very clear awareness of the issues around tree preservation and buffering and fencing along those property boundaries to be dealt with through that later process. Thank you. Councillor Layman. Thank you. I just want to follow up on one of the people speaking tonight on their concern about access. And I apologize if this has already been answered. In the situation where there’s a number of cars lined up going south on Viscount, line at the light wishing to make a left hand turn on a red light and a car comes in off of commissioners to have access to this property, not being able to turn into the property because block being blocked by those line up of cars thus blocking the south route of Viscount.

[4:05:58] Does staff see that as a concern? I believe this was raised by one of the people speaking tonight. Staff, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do appreciate that concern. We did look at that very closely. We will be through the site plan process be ensuring that the access is located as far to the south on the property as possible. We’re also going to be coordinating with traffic engineering to optimize the signal timings there in order to minimize cues. And there’s also going to be some consideration for potential side-by-side left turn lanes which would mitigate the back up of traffic on Viscount going south if there is somebody waiting to turn left into the site.

[4:06:44] Thank you. Any other questions? All right, I’ll turn it over to the committee then for any motions or comments. Anybody wish to do anything? Mr. Mayor. I’d like to put it on the table chair and or— Move the staff recommendation.

[4:07:19] Yeah, I think we should. I’ve never called you a table in a chair in one sentence, everybody’s orbit here, we have it. Thank you. We have a seconder. We’re just trying to get it on the floor. I don’t, I think sometimes counselors are hesitant because I think it means approval for something but we do need to get things on the floor. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. So we have the motion to approve the staff recommendation. We’ll open it up for debate. If not, I will call the question if nobody’s going to step up.

[4:07:55] Okay, so I’ll call the question. Chair, I’ll vote yes on this. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. I’m still waiting for it.

[4:08:35] Those in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Next matter is item 3.8, which is a public participation meeting with regard to 104/7 to 105/5 during this drive. I need a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hillyer, seconded by Councillor Layman. There’s nothing further, I will call the vote. I’ll vote yes, then Chair, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, please.

[4:09:24] Those in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Right, we will go to the staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Barb Debert again. This is an application for an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment affecting lands at the northwest corner of Bradley Avenue and Deerness Drive. The original proposal was for a six-story apartment building with 47 residential units and 200 square meters of commercial space on the ground floor. The application was revised in March in response to staff and neighbourhood concerns to allow a six-story apartment building with 55 residential units and no commercial development at a density of 134 units per hectare.

[4:10:10] Parking is to be partially located in an underground parking structure. Lands to the north and east include single detached dwellings and the land uses to the south and west include the commercial node, including White Oaks Mall and the Fanshawe College building and parking lot. The land is in the neighbourhood’s place, type in the London plan, which permits the requested use with a maximum height of six stories with bonusing. In the 1989 official plan, the lands are designated low density residential, which permits infill development in multiple housing forms, including low-rise apartment buildings up to a maximum density of 75 units per hectare.

[4:10:50] Since the London plan is not fully enforced in effect for the site, city staff initiated an amendment to the 1989 official plan to align the policies with the London plan. In particular, this change was to place the lands in the multifamily medium density residential designation and to allow a maximum density of 134 units per hectare while ensuring that the city design policies of the London plan are applied to the site. The recommended zoning bylaw amendment supports the key directions of the London plan, including providing for a compact contiguous pattern of growth that looks inward and upward, infill and intensification that uses existing services and ensuring a mix of housing types within neighbourhoods.

[4:11:34] Overall, the proposal satisfies the planning impact analysis of the 1989 official plan and the evaluation criteria for planning and development applications in the R tools part of the London plan. The request for bonusing to increase the height from four to six stories is supported by exceptional urban design and the provision of affordable housing. With respect to design, the location and massing of the proposed building are consistent with urban design goals. The building is proposed to be situated close to the intersection of Bradley Avenue and Dernestrive, defining the street edge and encouraging a street-oriented design with ground floor entrances facing the streets.

[4:12:16] The building design includes building articulation, rhythm, materials, fenestration and balconies along both street frontages. The parking area is located behind the building and does not extend into the exterior side yard beyond the building facade. Adequate spaces provided along the sides in front of the parking lot and the ramp to the underground parking to provide for appropriate screening of the parking from the street and adjacent to abutting properties. The proposed building placement provides for a suitable separation between the proposed development and the existing homes, mitigating compatibility concerns including loss of privacy.

[4:12:54] Sufficient spaces available to provide for appropriate fencing and vegetative screening along the north property boundary adjacent to the existing single detached dwelling. A revised design submitted during the process provided a new driveway alignment in an effort to preserve one of the mature trees located within the future city boulevard. This realignment has resulted in some design challenges for the underground parking ramp and surface parking that will need to be addressed during a future site plan approval process. The requirements for the application of the recommended bonus zone recognize that there may be a departure in this respect from the drawings attached to the recommended zoning bylaw amendment.

[4:13:36] Also noting that such changes are to continue to accommodate an enhanced landscaped buffer along the north property line. The affordable housing component of the recommended bonus provision includes a total of two one bedroom units and two two bedroom units which are to be provided at rents not exceeding 85% of the average market rent at the time of building occupancy for a duration of 50 years. In addition to concerns about the proposed intensity of development, members of the public raised concerns regarding the additional traffic impacts on deer in a strive and storm water management control in an area that currently experiences standing water in the spring and after storm events.

[4:14:20] Traffic concerns included the poor condition of deer in a strive, unsafe crossing conditions for children attending Nicholas Wilson Public School and other pedestrians, existing traffic volume, cut through traffic and speed. Based on previous requests by area residents the city’s traffic calming team completed a review in 2018 to determine if an always stop at the intersection of deer in a strive and Willow Lane was warranted and found that it was not. A review for traffic calming on deer in a strive was also completed but it did not qualify.

[4:14:56] Deer in a strive is a collector street that is intended to funnel traffic to the arterial roads. It has sufficient capacity to accommodate the small amount of traffic that will be generated by this proposed development and that existing traffic issue should not be an impediment to consideration of the proposed development. Transportation impact assessment was not required for the zoning bylaw amendment and detailed access design and location will be determined through the site plan approval process. Deer in a strive currently has a rural cross section with relatively narrow pavement in various states of repair with gravel along the edges and the system of ditches and culverts for stormwater control.

[4:15:37] Infrastructure upgrades to an urban cross section including curb and gutter, new sewer and water upgrades are anticipated for 2026. Additionally with the upgraded to an urban cross section any warranted traffic controls and/or calming can also be considered for implementation at that time. With respect to stormwater management control the servicing feasibility study submitted with the application indicated that the stormwater management quantity controls will be designed to control post-development flows for the two year through 100 year storm events to the existing pre-development levels.

[4:16:17] The 250 year storm event will be safely conveyed overland to the deer in a strive right of way. As part of the site plan application a geotechnical report will be required to support the underground structure as well as address any high ground water or dewatering requirements. As part of the site plan application the applicants engineer will be required to address stormwater flows on the surface and required to contain and control all flows on site. The staff recommendation is for approval of an amendment to the 1989 official plan to change the designation to multifamily medium density residential with a special policy to allow a maximum density of 134 units per hectare and a zone change to a residential R9 bonus zone with special provisions to permit the proposed 55 unit apartment building.

[4:17:10] Staff is satisfied that the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and is in conformity with the policies of both the London plan and the 1989 official plan. Thank you and staff are available to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is the applicant present? Yes, I am Mr. Chair. It’s Laverne Kirkness of SBM planning. All right, go ahead. Okay, well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members and members of the public that are attending.

[4:17:45] I should tell you that Leo Viglianti and his daughter Maria that have been the primary applicants are attending along with Max Simms, a representative from Zed architecture. Should you have any questions of them? But I’ll be quick, I know you’re way behind here on the schedule, but we thank planning staff for their thorough report and one that is supportive of our proposal. We agree with it, we have no changes to ask and we would then therefore ask planning committee or hope that planning committee may be of the same mind and support adopt the recommendation and take it on to council for August the 10th.

[4:18:26] I’d like to just point out a couple of things. This is kind of a unique application. Maybe unique compared to the other ones you’ve heard tonight as we’ve been listening, but Leo and the Vigliandes are basically residents and have been for 50 years of that property 1047 and 1055 in two different single detached homes. It’s Leo’s mother that lives in one, he lives in the other. The two properties make about one acre. They’re part of an old BLA subdivision and the neighborhood known as Deirdas Drive. They’re located on the very edge of the neighborhood and really between the Wellington Road corridor and White Oaks regional mall to the west and Fanshawe College in the old Westerbelt building and then to the east, which is Deirdas Drive and to the east of that is of course, the Deirdas neighborhood, which is primarily a single detached residential neighborhood.

[4:19:21] So the other unique aspect of this is that the apartment building that the Vigliandes propose is a one where they would like to reside. So they want to stay in the neighborhood and there’ll be basically an owner occupant of this rental apartment building. That’s a bit different. They’re not developers. They’re basically citizens of London and hardworking citizens of London, but they, I guess in a sense, are developers as soon as they start developing this site, should they get the approval?

[4:19:58] Should say that the Vigliandes have been great to work with. We’ve been a few months getting through the zoning process, but we’ve done a functional servicing studies to show that there’s adequate municipal services. We’ve done an archeology study. We’ve done a planning justification report to show conformity with the land use planning policy framework and the urban design guidelines. We have spent substantial money on the architecture, which you do with bonus zoning. So you know basically the building you get when you grant the bonus zone. And we’ve done an urban design brief and appeared before the panel and all the while we have been responding.

[4:20:34] Probably you’re looking at about the fifth set of revisions here tonight with basically two major changes. But the changes have come about mainly because of the urban design panel, mainly because of neighborhood concerns because we had our own community meeting back on April the 14th. And about 18 households appeared. It was of course online. And for an hour and a half we did exchange thoughts about the pros and cons of this development. I think one of the most significant things that came out of the meeting was the traffic problems on Deerness Drive which we’ve been trying to work with the city on to see what we could do to contribute.

[4:21:12] But basically we have one access to Deerness and it’s close to Bradley. We’re providing a road dedication to widen Bradley, et cetera. So we’ve removed the commercial component. We’ve certainly made the building so its narrow end is facing the residential neighborhood. We’ve enhanced the architecture of that end as well. We’ve tried to be sensitive to the trees along Deerness Drive and along the east side of our property and will be at site plan approval and through a tree inventory that’s being required of us.

[4:21:52] So in the end, Mr. Chair and committee members, this is basically what the London plan envisages and certainly it’s a great transitional use, we think, between the very high rise development that you know is proposed at Bradley and Wellington on the very northwest corner and the residential neighborhood to the east. And so we’re hoping that UC fit to support the planning staff report which is basically comprising our application. We would like to respond to any residential concerns perhaps, but we’ll wait and see what they might be.

[4:22:29] Thank you very much. Thank you. Does the committee have any technical questions for the applicant or for staff? You’re being done. We will go to the public for speaker. Hello. - Hello, how are you? Very good. Yes. This is Healy McLennan from 914 Deerness Drive. Okay, go ahead, sir. I was listening to the conversation and my biggest concern would be this traffic study that was done in 2018.

[4:23:07] I believe I kind of initiated that. I spoke with a Mr. Mark Ridley and at that time I was told it could not be done until the spring. Well, they set up a wire across the road and I do believe that’s how they did their study. The problem was where they put the wire across the road is north of Wellingsboro, where the traffic is maybe third of what it is going to the south of Wellingsboro.

[4:23:46] I moved here approximately 10 years ago and I live directly across from this intersection. And in the time that I have been here, the traffic has tripled, at least. On that Wellingsboro, we have the Islamic Youth Center. We have a Jehovah Witness temple plus they have also added a strip mall on the corner that faces Wellington that all of the services and customers come out through the rear of the building, especially if they wish to go south on Wellington because you can’t.

[4:24:24] There’s a Starbucks, there’s Popice Chicken, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Jersey Mikes, Pizza Nova, Roy Inch, all of these businesses are emptying onto Wellingsboro. They come down that road. It’s also a stop sign that I contacted the London police because as far as I’m concerned, people are breaking the law by running that stop sign and it’s also no trucks on that road.

[4:24:59] But once again, it’s a service road. It’s not enforced. I was told they would put it on a list and like I say, I’m retired and I live right across from that and I have never seen an officer. I offered to put them in my driveway so they could watch it. Other concerns, the crosswalk that is at Deerness and Willow Lane, it empties on the west side of the road into somebody’s driveway. There’s no overhead markings.

[4:25:33] The bus makes a, comes down as far as from Bradley to Willow Lane and it goes east from there. It has to go over the curb in order to make the turn, which is also the crosswalk there. Extremely dangerous. We have lower income housing down at the end of the street, which is semis. I know of two home day cares from there.

[4:26:08] There’s 12 kids every day going four times a day crossing and I can’t do anything where I’ve contacted people and it seems to be ignored. They have a three-way stop with crosswalks at Willow Lane and Osgoode. They also have a three-way stop crosswalk at Willow Lane and Willow Drive, nothing at Deerness. There’s no sidewalks on the east side of the road.

[4:26:45] So they have to cross the road. Anyways, those are just a few of the things. Once again, now we, what do we got here? Here we go, one minute lobster. Yes, I see that. And the other thing, like it was, this was a VLA residential area. The properties are large. I wonder what kind of precedent we are going to set with this. The reason they want this building, or to put this building is because yes, there is the area, but that is the reason I moved here.

[4:27:23] I like my own big lot. Is that what I’m gonna do? Go with my neighbor and say, geez, we can make a pile of money here. Let’s do what they did, you know, it’s zone residential. I guess that’s residential, I don’t know. Anyways, that’s about all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, everyone. First, I wanna take a moment to say thank you to Barb Debert for taking my many calls and emails.

[4:27:58] My name is Nicole Burke and my husband Trenton and I, along with our girls who are two and four, live at 1039 Deerness Drive, which is the home next door to the proposed development. For context, we have 11 windows, our deck and our front and backyards that all will face the proposed site. There are currently no buildings in our community of Westminster that are this height and scale. The shadow study that was conducted shows that for the entire winter months, the homes to the north will have all sunlight blocked by this building.

[4:28:31] We are part of the group of neighbors who created a petition against the zoning application. As of today, our petition has 198 signatures. The petition was distributed to only four neighboring streets, including Deerness Drive, Willow Drive, Glen Banner Drive and Dunham Lane. That number, 198, represents only five and a half blocks of homes. Therefore, the large majority of the neighborhood are against this proposed rezoning application. Since December of last year, 11 neighboring houses that are all located within 120 meters of 1047 and 1055 Deerness Drive have joined together to oppose this rezoning application.

[4:29:12] We have secured council, Paula Lombardi, a partner at Siskins as our legal representation. She will be helping us appeal any approval of this application. I, along with more than 47 other neighbors, have already submitted an email outlining the many reasons we are all against this application. I am speaking tonight to add additional concerns that have come up through speaking with neighbors, many of which who are over 70 years old and the original homeowners on this street. I have reviewed the original application in recent amendment and I wanted to outline specific areas that are attempting to address any concerns that came up in the community meeting earlier this year.

[4:29:52] We believe these areas are manipulative and intentionally misleading to look as if changes were made to the betterment of the neighboring homes. One example is on tonight’s agenda, page 439, you will see that items 10 through 12 speak to protecting the privacy of the neighboring homes to the north. The misleading part is when you look at the details, which are said to include quote enhanced landscape buffer quote, to mitigate privacy concerns. The applicants are proposing a 1.8 meter or five foot six inch wooden fence along the property line.

[4:30:30] Our current fence is six foot four inches high. The proposed fence doesn’t address any privacy concerns. In addition, a line of trees will be planted along the property line, but that won’t be relevant until if and when those trees grow over six feet in 20 to 25 years. Another part of the amendment that doesn’t fit into the current neighborhood is the additional bonus zone considerations which propose moving the standard spacing for an R9 zoning. The applicants have asked for the current front yard depth of eight meters to be changed to one meter.

[4:31:09] Additionally, the side yard depth is proposed at two meters rather than the standard 11 meters. Both of these changes negatively impact the landscape of the neighborhood as well as the homes both across the street and to the north. The bonus thing increasing the height to six stories rather than four completely goes against the standard of this community, which is entirely one to two story homes. There are many homes in this area that have had second or third story addition applications denied by the city due to privacy concerns.

[4:31:44] Yet this application has been allowed to get this far. One of my final comments has to do with the proposed driveway and traffic it will generate. Not only is it located within 30 feet of my property, but there is no plan to include a driveway to the Bradley side of the property. With only one driveway, the additional traffic will cause a lot of problems on an already busy road with existing traffic concerns. Since 2014, we have been contacting two city counselors as well as the traffic division regarding traffic concerns on Deirdre’s drive, specifically requesting a stop sign at Deirdre’s and Willow Lane.

[4:32:24] We have a long trail of over 30 emails and 10 phone calls requesting a traffic assessment to address the current issues of speeding and an existing illegal, which I’ve confirmed with the traffic division, illegal school crossing sign at that intersection. A traffic study was conducted in 2018, but it failed by a small margin, 20 cars to be exact, to be considered for a three-way stop. The traffic calming crosswalk was approved despite the fact that there is a sidewalk on only one side of the street and the current spot for the proposed crosswalk has a driveway in the way.

[4:33:01] You have one minute remaining. Thank you. I mentioned this backstory as to date, nothing has changed despite many neighbors contacting the city about traffic for the past 20 years. The 2018 traffic study is being used with this application despite that it is not sufficient nor applicable to this application. The traffic at Bradley and Deirdre’s was not looked at in 2018 as they would have seen that upwards of 10 to 20 cars an hour can be found using the driveways on Deirdre’s near Bradley to turn around and go west on Bradley.

[4:33:36] Surely the addition of 55 units would make an existing problem exorbitantly worse. In closing, we as a community are opposing this application and currently feel disregarded. At this time, we request that the Vigliani family voluntarily withdraw their application to protect and preserve this cherished neighborhood. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. Next speaker, hello. Barb Fisher. I’m sorry, Barb. Barbara Fisher.

[4:34:09] Barbara Fisher. And I live on Deirdre. I did send out some emails and one of the questions, I’m gonna address four issues. One of the questions I had is, do we know the outcome of zoning by-law that was proposed for file zero dash 9263 slash that— I’m sorry, perhaps it’s me, but I’m having trouble hearing you, you’re breaking up a little bit. Okay, I’ll try and sit forward and that might help. Okay. I’m just asking whether we know the results of the proposal of the three 18 to 22 story building units that’s supposed to be on the northwest corner to block from where this proposed site is, whether we’ve got the outcome of that, because an additional 1,239 residential dwelling place brings to question whether we really do need these additional spaces, these living spaces, if that is actualized.

[4:35:07] My second one is with regard to the traffic, I believe you do need a traffic engineer’s analysis report, not only for the present situation, because when I first saw your sign saying about this proposal, the first thing I said to my husband is there will be blood on their hands. The next couple of days, that’s when they took out the traffic light and I saw the car backwards in front of McDonald’s, this is not a good functioning traffic intersection. And that’s prior to this proposal, that’s prior to the proposal of 1,239 potential residents to block the way.

[4:35:51] You need to take a look at the fact that they’re coming with a left hand turn, which again, decreases the path before that intersection. I’m telling you, only reason I’m speaking, and you can probably— Okay, I am, you’re speaking quickly, but you’re also breaking up, and it does, perhaps, again, I don’t know my colleagues, but I’m having trouble following what you’re saying, and you’re be sure— What I’m saying is, it’s probably because I’m not inclined to speak like this. This is not something I do naturally. Don’t I understand?

[4:36:25] Only reason I’m talking to you is that I’ll be able to sleep nice if somebody is dead, because what’s being proposed is a death sentence for someone, that is— No, no, I’m not complaining, I mean, you are starting to say things that are a little bit inflammatory, but it’s the technology. We’re having trouble hearing you properly on the technology that you’re using. What I’m saying is, it is not functioning. 2018 is not an acceptable timeframe. I’ve lived here 10 years.

[4:36:57] I almost had my husband run over at Wellingsboro. I cried for about a half hour after I pulled him back from the guy who tried to hit him. I’m telling you, the functioning in this area with the infiltration of commercial and then adding apartments and then monster apartments, two blocks away, the movement on that intersection will be deadly. That’s my second point. If we are going within and up, let’s take a look at the building in the area between commissioner and Bradley.

[4:37:33] There is one token apartment that is going to be built, hasn’t been built yet at a hybrid. That area is almost the same as the area between White Oaks and Deerness Drive. And I can tell you straight out, on Bradley, there is one six-story, eight seven-story, five, excuse me, two eight-story, two nine-story, two 15-story, there are 15 mid and high-rise buildings on Bradley. You’ve got one token one in the new build.

[4:38:07] If you want in and up to be a part of our building requirement, then do it from the beginning. Do it as you’re developing a neighborhood and don’t use it as leverage to come into single-family dwelling because we came here under the guise of what the community was going to be and you’re changing it. You are supposed to be our protection. The bylaws are supposed to be protecting us as citizens. And that’s what we depend on you to do. Finally, my last comment is, if this is past, this is slippery slope, as another gentleman said.

[4:38:45] Will we not have an apartment on the other side of the road as Bradley goes? Will we have one on Southfield at the end of the road or two at the end of the road? Will we have one Willow drive one on each side? Will we have them on Southfield on each side too? Because it’s possible, doesn’t mean it should be. And what protects us from changes from senior apartment building? Maybe it could be all ages start to become included, including the students at Fanshawe. And the question about that comes as a result of the bicycle storage area.

[4:39:20] I haven’t seen a lot of senior cities jumping on bicycles. You’re busy. You just passed five minutes, so I’ll just give you a few seconds to wrap up. That’s okay. Okay, the impact of this proposal is a paramount importance to me. I do not want to see somebody in yours. You need a more updated track analysis to understand the risks to life. And if we’re gonna do in and up, it should be in the earlier development of subdivision. How exactly are we improving this community? I believe this proposal and amendments to the bylaws do not help us in any positive way, especially if we have— Okay, you’re gonna have to, you’ve gone well over your time.

[4:40:04] Thank you very much for your listening. Thank you, next speaker. Hello, I’m Pat and Gary McCarty. Okay. We live at 1035 dinners, right beside Nicole Burke and her husband. So we’re the second house from the proposed project. We bought a house and a land and we sold the house. We built this house we’re living in now ourselves. We, with the idea that it was a beautiful neighborhood, mature trees, there was a park behind us and that we would be living here until we have to go to a senior citizen home.

[4:40:48] We felt that this area is well developed. There’s a mixture of different houses which makes our street unique and this whole area unique. One of my concerns is dearest drive the road itself. It’s considerably narrower than most of the other roads. When you’re going down the street from Southdale, if there’s cars parked along one side and even on the other side where they’re not supposed to, you have to stop and wait for oncoming traffic. And even then, cars are over and more in your lane. You have to pull off almost into the gravel area right off the shoulder.

[4:41:25] The traffic has been horrible since we’ve moved here. We’ve been here over 25 years and the increase in the traffic every year has been just horrendous. And with this project going into the corner, 55 units means perhaps 55 plus cars going in and out of all hours. The noise, the disturbance coming in and out of the lights flashing on our windows from headlights of the cars and also the security lights that are going to have to be placed on this building will be shining directly in our homes and in our backyards.

[4:42:06] As well as the balconies overlooking our backyard, we will have lost any privacy we had. My other concern is with this London project, I really feel that you’re not taking into consideration the established neighborhoods that have been here for years and you’re just shoving apartment buildings wherever you can to get people in them because of inability to afford homes. And I understand that.

[4:42:38] But there are many other apartment buildings that could be built specifically to that. This one on the corner is not necessary because of the ones going in on Wellington Road by Drulu. And I’m sure that will be accepted. There’s supposed to be five towers and all these extra people in this area, the crime, the inability to feel safe in your own backyard is going to be exponential. I just feel this area is not made for an apartment building. It was built for veterans.

[4:43:13] A lot of the veterans some still live here or their children even. And they feel this was their home. This street was beautiful. And this is going to be spoiled by an apartment building. And I really think that Leo and his family and his mother Maria, I know she wouldn’t want this. I know she loves the area and wants to stay here, but I’m sure she wouldn’t love an apartment building to live in with no backyard. I see her in the backyard all the time, doing the plants and looking around. She loves it back there.

[4:43:45] And then she’s going to be stuck in an apartment building because her son wants this to happen. And that’s about all I have to say. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Next speaker. Yes. Toyota, your name? It’s Connie Larch. My husband, Brian, and I live right across from the proposed site. And of course, we have a lot of reasons we don’t want it just like everybody else in this subdivision.

[4:44:19] According to the 1989 official plan, the subject site is designated low density residential. Within this designation development shall have a low rise, low coverage form that minimizes problems of shadowing, view obstruction and loss of privacy. Well, that’s what we’ve all been talking about. The requested density of development exceeds that permitted by both the low density residential designation and the multifamily medium density residential designations of the 1989 official plan.

[4:44:55] Most of the people in our area bought here because there weren’t any apartment buildings. In fact, there aren’t many two story homes in this area either. When you go to a new subdivision that’s being built, you can look at the plans for that subdivision and see where there’s gonna be townhouses, semis and apartment buildings. And then you have the choice of buying a house near it or not near it. In this situation, we don’t have a choice and the decisions being made for us. There is no need for this proposed apartment building since there are multiple high rise of buildings proposed for Wellington and Bradley, which is one block away.

[4:45:34] Why do we need another one here in this low housing area, the lower buildings? Traffic, as you’ve heard over and over, is already a huge concern for our area. And by adding the proposed apartment building, it’s only gonna get worse. Now, during this drive has apparently 2,500 vehicles per day. Backing out of our driveways will be even more difficult than it already is. Parking during construction, if it’s passed, will hinder traffic greatly on deerness and visitor parking after it’s built is also a major concern.

[4:46:14] If this proposed apartment building is built, we will have a lovely view of some balconies and a six story wall from our front porch, not to mention no privacy when we’re on the porch, definitely not why we bought our house. Living across from this proposed building will definitely affect our property value. It will be hard to sell a house across from the apartment building. The London Plan contemplates residential intensification were appropriately located and provided in a way that is sensitive to and a good fit with the existing neighborhood.

[4:46:49] This apartment building doesn’t fit with this neighborhood and doesn’t follow the plan on either of the specifications. Needless to say, we’re not in favor of having a six story apartment building built in our neighborhood for these reasons they’ve given you and many more. We want our area to stay the same friendly neighborhood it is now. I have a few questions for you about this proposed project. First one is, who is the main developer? Does the developer have to post a bond with the city? What guarantee does our neighborhood have that if the project starts, it will be completed?

[4:47:30] If the zoning gets changed, is it possible for the developer to flip it to another developer? And if so, can the plans change or will they have to use the same plans? These are just a few of the concerns we could probably go on all night, but you’ve been here long enough. We appreciate you listening and giving us a chance to tell you how much we do not want and do not need this apartment building in our neighborhood. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. That is the last member of the public to speak. So I would need a motion to close the public participation meeting by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

[4:48:10] Unless there’s something further, I’ll open the vote and I’m gonna assume the mayor gonna vote yes. Peace here. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. All right, some questions. Somebody asked about a proposal of a three to 22-story building two blocks away.

[4:48:48] I don’t know if the staff’s able to answer whether there’s an application pending or whether it’s been approved. Mr. Chair, Michael Thomas in six speaking here. There is an active application being processed right now. The applicant was proposing changes to that design. And so there was a little bit of a delay while we waited for revisions from the applicant, but we do anticipate it bringing it to Planning Committee in the early fall. Thank you. There’s concern expressed about the traffic study and people were mentioning that we, it’s a 2018 traffic study that didn’t address all of the various issues in the area.

[4:49:26] I wonder if staff could help with that issue. Chair Grady from transportation here. Through you, Mr. Chair, there was two studies done in 2018. One was the traffic calming studies. See the traffic calming measures were warranted based on the results of that study. They were determined not to be warranted based on the council approved policy. Having said that, based on the vintage of that study, another study could be requested by the residents following the policy.

[4:49:57] So that would be 10 petitions from homeowners since it’s been three years since the last one’s been completed. And then the other study, which was completed by traffic engineering was also in 2018 for warrant for the all-way stop. Based on the information I have, there were 259 vehicles recorded and the warrant is actually 350. So it was short about, I guess, 91 vehicles there to meet that. I don’t know offhand the requirements for additional studies there when that be warranted, but I think it’d be fair that another request could go in for another always stop for you.

[4:50:37] All right, so was there a traffic study for this related to this development? Well, my apologies. No, there was not a traffic study completed for this development. It was not to turn to be warranted based on the— Thank you. And there were some questions about the nature of the developer. I think we already heard that the owner is a developer and there were questions about posting a bond and a guarantee. Can you help with that, staff? Mr. Chair, Michael Thomas-Insec here. The zoning applies to the property, not the property owner.

[4:51:11] And so there is securities required when they go through the site plan process, but that comes at subsequent development stages. Part of that question too was whether or not if the applicant can flip the property. Yes, the applicant is able to sell the property to any number of developers. But the zoning that we have proposed here is a bonus zone so that the proposed development is enshrined within the by-law. So any new development or any new developer would be required to build as had been depicted.

[4:51:47] Otherwise it would be required to go through another public process. Thank you. There may be some other questions that my colleagues can pick up on those if they wish to. So I’ll go to the committee for questions at this point, Councillor Hillyer. Yes, thank you. The very first question I’ve had in quite a few communications is regarding the Veterans Land Act, the lands that are there. I’ve never had any work was developing on a VLA. So are there any specific rules we have to follow or is it just traditional? Related to this development, you mean? Yes.

[4:52:19] All right, go ahead. Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair, the best I could do, it’s Barb, but the best I could do was an online search regarding the Veterans Land Act legislation because some implications had been made by people who wrote in that there was some right of preservation of Veterans Land Act rights. I wouldn’t say I have the definitive answer, but I was unable to find anything that would indicate that there was a right of prevention of alternative types of development on Veterans Land Act lands.

[4:52:58] Okay, Councillor. Thank you, that was the same thing I found. I just wanted to be sure. Okay, also regarding this, this was a proof of London plan. It would be four stories, but through Bonusing, it’s allowed to be six stories. Well, we just had a proposal to go through on Southfield where they’re actually donating four units. This one, they’re giving 15% off, bringing 85% of market rent, but they’re gaining an additional 14 full units for it. I’m just, is there some sort of an equation that tells us how much they need to give up in the Bonusing? ‘Cause they’re giving away units in the one and here we’re getting 15%.

[4:53:37] Mr. Chair, Michael Tom is into care. There is no formula per se, but what we do is we recognize certain development rights and then above and beyond that, a certain percentage above and beyond what is permitted, that’s what’s eligible for the bonus. So in this case, we call that the lift. And so it’s a certain percentage of the lift. The other difference between the two is that the other one was a condominium so that we gained full ownership of the units, whereas this is proposed to be a rental, so it’s a decrease in the monthly rent.

[4:54:13] And according to the developer, this is high end rentals as well. I was just doing some quick calculations on this. I’m looking at two one bedrooms and two two bedrooms at 85% of market rent, and I’m figuring out how much of difference it is. And in the first five years, it’s only about a $62,000 loss, but the overall value on the property is probably gonna go up with 25 or 35. Yeah, but we’re doing questions. So is there a question there or? Sorry, I was just looking for the technical answer on the equation. Okay, I’ll come back. Okay, thank you. Councilor Hopkins? Yes, I do have a question through you to staff about what intensity is allowed on this site right now.

[4:54:58] I know the zoning, we’re looking at 134 units per hectare, but what is allowed without this zoning change? And I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, go ahead, staff. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair, the current zone on the property is an R19. So they would be allowed one single detached dwelling per unit. From a policy perspective, they’re in the low density residential designation. So we would typically allow development up to 30 units per hectare.

[4:55:33] However, there is additional policy for infill and intensification in previously developed neighborhoods that would allow up to 75 units per hectare without any official plan amendment. Thank you for that information. And after comments, I would like to bring forward the motion and then make comments. All right, any other questions at this point in time? All right, no more questions. So it’s a debate and I’ll leave it to committee as to what your desire is on this matter.

[4:56:12] Councilor Hopkins? Yes, I’d like to bring forward the recommendation. So you’re moving the recommendation? Yes, and then I’ll make comments. I guess I— Yes, I’ll come back to you to make comments. Yeah, since you’re the mover and seconded by Councilor Lewis. So go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Thank you. And I wanna thank the public for coming out as well. I know it’s been a long night and I know these infill projects are very, very difficult for neighborhoods. They change neighborhoods.

[4:56:45] And I would hope that down the road, we’re gonna have to take a look at how these infills affect neighborhoods and see if we can kind of do it a different way ‘cause they are in a very intense conversation that no matter what ward you represent, it’s always difficult. But I wanna start off with why I’m supporting this motion. And the big reason, the number one reason I’m supporting the intensification, which is not as great.

[4:57:17] We’ve seen a lot more intensification throughout this evening, but it is near the transit route. It is really important as we have heard on a number of applications. And this one included the safety of our roads and how we move around is a concern. And transit and other means of transportation need to be supported. I’m disappointed that we started off the night, not supporting a secondary plan because of transit. And here we are dealing with these challenges in our neighborhood.

[4:57:50] So I am supportive of the underground parking, the bonusing the applicant got with that as well as the affordable housing portion. I wanna thank the applicant for working with the urban design peer review. I think there’s been lots of changes therein. I would continue to encourage the applicant, not only working with the urban design review, but also working with the tree inventory and the preservation of those trees, especially towards that ease creating that buffering.

[4:58:25] I think staff have heard loud and clear of the road improvements that are needed in this area, be it a one-way stop or be it the road itself on dearness. But right now this is a zoning amendment that we are here tonight discussing. And I will be supporting it. Thank you. Other comments? Councillor Lewis. And I’ll come to you, Mayor Holder, after Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m gonna be very brief here. Councillor Hopkins outlined most of what I was thinking in terms of my support on this as well.

[4:59:05] Although I will say that the difference here for me is this is an approved rapid transit corridor, not one that we declined. So it’s a little different than what we were starting at with the start of the evening. But I’m also mindful of the fact that we are also dealing with a location where staff have already indicated road improvements are coming. In 2026, if I’m reading the chicken scratch on my notepad here properly, and that we already have some, in fact, pretty significant development right around it with a commercial plaza and a light industrial plaza on the south side, the Fanshawe College building that was formerly the Westerville College building.

[4:59:51] So I don’t say this disrespectfully to folks because I recognize change is hard, but these are not going to remain single-family dwelling lots given the intensity of that corridor and the increased intensity that is expected in the months and years ahead. So that’s why I seconded in and we’ll be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Other comments? Oh, sorry, Mayor Holder, I forgot, go ahead.

[5:00:24] Thanks very much. You’ll note in a number of the votes that we’ve had earlier tonight that I’ve sort of supported the developments. I’m absolutely struggling with this for a few reasons. I think because to me, there are some unanswered questions, unanswered questions around the issue of a more current traffic study, which I think is important. I think another that comes to my mind is this serious question as it relates to veterans lands that I didn’t get a clear answer. So if we can’t defer this and I don’t know if I’m able to make a motion to defer subject to those questions being answered and there may well be some others, am I able through you, Chair, to put a motion to defer?

[5:01:14] Okay, you’re subject to those issues being resolved? Yes, you can, certainly, you can do it to defer. So the mayor wants to vote to defer to have the issues that the veterans land and an up-to-date traffic study addressed. And Councillor Hill, you’re seconding that, okay. This discussion about the deferral, as she takes precedence, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the mayor raising the point about the Veterans Land Act. We did hear from staff earlier that there was no real definitive answer on this that they could locate right now.

[5:01:55] So through you, to our staff, I’m wondering what next steps would be in terms of getting us an answer on that. Is it a Veterans Affairs issue that you’re going to have to talk to the federal government about or what that is? I will say that, I did hear staff say that they would already consider another traffic study. So I wouldn’t necessarily support the referral on that condition or on that particular reason because those are neighborhood generated through a petition process.

[5:02:32] But certainly the Veterans Land Act, I’m interested in hearing what else we would do to get some more surety around that. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins on the referral. Yes, my question is very similar to Councillor Lewis. I guess the traffic study just through you to staff. What will we be asking that we haven’t, that what we will not be doing? I just don’t understand what we’re asking here that’s not already going to be done.

[5:03:07] Yeah, I suppose the question is the traffic studies that went before were not related to the development itself. They were traffic studies people asked for with regard to speed and the kind we see all the time. So I don’t know, I guess I could get clarity from the mover. Are you looking for a traffic study, sort of the effect of this development on the neighborhood? Because the traffic studies were done in 2018, we’ve learned we’re not for that. They were just to look at the street and how fast people were going and assess that. So I just some clarity, maybe I’m what you’re looking for and then we can go to staff and see how long or what would be involved in coming back with answers on those two.

[5:03:45] Absolutely, Chair, I mean, it’s one thing to determine traffic studies as a basis of a residential neighborhood. And when it’s impacted as dramatically as this, I think we as council deserve to have the information that’s as current and appropriate with this major change being considered. And the second is it relates to the Veterans Land Act and any other impacts that that might deal with to the extent staff can respond to that, great. But you know what?

[5:04:16] I would like to have a definitive position if they’re a definitive about this, which is what I did not hear. That’s one thing, but I have those two issues. And I would like the traffic study to incorporate the impacts of this development. And obviously with the rapid transit on Wellington that ultimately we’ll be going through. All right, so I think staff understands those two things that are looked for where the referral is talking about. So I perhaps staff could indicate, I assume one would require a legal opinion, the second would require a traffic study related to the development and I don’t know who would do that, whether it would be the applicant who would have to do that or how that would be done.

[5:05:01] So staff could help with that. Mr. Chair, Michael Thomas in secure, I’ll just chime in on the veteran’s land. We will definitely speak with legal to get a legal opinion on that. With regard to the traffic, I believe that that’s something that the applicant would undertake as part of the site plan approval process. So it would be part of the next step in this process actually. Correct, Mr. Chair. All right.

[5:05:34] So that’s your answer for those considering the referral. The traffic study is actually part of the site plan and we could get a legal opinion on the Veterans Land Act. I think all staff said, and to be fair, Ms. Deborah who’s a planner said she had looked at it and didn’t feel there were any rights, but I’m not gonna venture an opinion myself even tonight. I think it’s something that someone have to look at. So that’s the challenge I think with the referral is the referral, if we ask for a traffic study now, then I’m not sure how procedurally it would be done is the city gonna undertake it and bear the cost of it or what’s going to happen, Councillor Hopkins.

[5:06:22] If I may ask if we could get an illegal opinion before a council or a council, would that be possible? Mr. Chair, we’ll endeavor to do that first thing tomorrow morning and see if we can— Mr. Chair, if I could just interrupt, it’s Kelly Daughtry from legal. I’m actually duty council this evening for the committee. And certainly if it is requested, I don’t know the answer. It’s not something I specialize in or have reviewed, but certainly legal would be happy to look into that issue with respect to the Veterans Land Act and provide an opinion if requested.

[5:06:59] All right. I’m comforted by the fact you don’t know the answer either. Makes me feel good. But that’s still, I mean, we’d have an illegal opinion, but we’re looking for this traffic study issue and that’s gonna be a longer enterprise. And of course, it’s normally something the applicant pays for and does. So in the next step in the proceeding, so I don’t know where that leaves us. I’m just trying to be wary of referring something without sufficient information for staff to be able to do it.

[5:07:31] Councillor Hillier, are you gonna help us? Actually, I just sent you the link to the Veterans Land Act with all the subsections in it. As you being a lawyer, you might be able to read through it. I’ve given a quick perusal, but I’ll be honest, I’m getting lost in the language and it goes all 40s and 50s. It’s not my job to give illegal opinion, Mayor Holder. Well, could staff not answer the question tonight with regard to the traffic study who pays for what and when? I would imagine that something that as we deal with that so often that they’d be able to help us with.

[5:08:06] Well, they did. They said that normally that is in the next step of the proceeding, which is site plan and the applicant pays for it. But if we’re asking for it now, I don’t, I mean, I suppose we could refer it, but then are we asking the applicant to do it now? So Chair, maybe you could help me by a question I would ask staff. Have we ever had a situation where we’ve asked that the traffic study component born by the applicant be done prior to an approval?

[5:08:40] Mr. Thomas Ensign, can you help with that? Mr. Chair, yes, I can. Typically when our transportation engineering staff believe that one is required because it’ll increase the traffic volumes on the street, we do ask when then we do ask for a study as part of a zoning bylaw amendment application. So we would have asked for it by now. A couple of things we could do is also put a holding provision for a traffic study or as you had indicated, referred back to staff until a study is done, but that wouldn’t be complete in one cycle.

[5:09:16] No, no, that wouldn’t. So I think the referral would be requesting a traffic study from the applicant. That’s the only way I can think of to do it. Does the applicant want to chime in and without prejudicing yourself? How do you feel about that? Mr. Chairman, we’re interested in no delays. And we were hoping that if you’re going to check out the BLA, you can do before August the 10th. With respect to traffic, I think probably the holding provision is the best way for us to be able to move forward with the zoning amendment subject to the BLA response.

[5:09:58] And at the site plan approval stage, do the traffic study in conjunction with the city and we’ll try and work this out. But the holding provision would not cause any delay. If you just stick us with traffic impact now, it’s probably, we know everybody is so busy. We probably can’t get back to you for six months with respect to traffic studies. So we’d appreciate the holding provision approach if you’re going to impose it on us. But then we’re approving your zoning amendment and that’s what we’re here tonight for.

[5:10:32] Well, that’s if you do, it would have a holding provision. Right, but I just want to make that clear. You can’t, we either defer this for a traffic study or we don’t, but we can’t approve something. If people want the traffic study to do the approval, that’s the conundrum. Mr. Barret here, I think what staff been trying to indicate to you is that at the zoning stage, our staff would raise if there were traffic concerns that we would identify in the report.

[5:11:13] When you’re looking at the actual impact of the traffic from the specific development, it is usually a matter of site plan. And at that point, a traffic impact assessment would be done. That would be borne by the applicant, but the reason it’s done at site plan is because at that point, you’re able to provide for any mitigative measures as the conditions of site plan approval. So you can deal with things like access control, locations of entrances and exits and those kinds of things. And that’s why that consideration is done at site plan. At zoning, I believe that the information that you heard from the transportation staff representatives was that this didn’t meet the warrants for an issue or for any of those concerns at the zoning stage, but certainly at site plan, when you can address the specific impacts of traffic and identify any mitigative measures, that would be the appropriate location.

[5:12:04] And as I said, that’s where you can apply those conditions through the site plan agreement to address those traffic concerns. Yep, and that makes things very clear. I think what we’re saying is staff decided we didn’t require a traffic study to approve the change in the zoning. And now we’re raising the issue that council, like this committee would like. So that would be, that’s where we are. So we have the referral on the floor. I mean, we’ve got a vote on it, but I interpreted to mean that we’re gonna be asking for a traffic study before approving the zoning change or the other way is to ask for it at site plan, which is from the point of view of the public is not what they’re looking for.

[5:12:49] They’re not looking for a change in zoning. And then so we’ve sort of, we’ve backed ourselves into a bit of a conundrum here. So Mr. Mayor, what would your motion be? Why don’t you tell us what you wanna move and we’ll go from there? All right, Chair, I’m prepared to defer the traffic study to site planning. Before I approve and we’re talking one more cycle, I’d like to get this clarity around the Veterans Land Act.

[5:13:26] I think we’ve heard enough from a number of counselors who know the importance of veterans to our community. And if there’s something there, I don’t think delay in this one cycle is the issue. So you wanna refer it to the next planning meeting to get a response to the Veterans Land Act issue? You’re much more articulate than me, Chair, that’s exactly where it is. And Councillor Hill, are you prepared to continue your second of that? Okay, before, okay, so we’ll have people speak to what we’re dealing with now, which is a referral just for the issue of the Veterans Land Act.

[5:14:06] And that would be deferring it to the next planning meeting, which I understand the applicant may not be happy with, but that’s our decision. Go ahead, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I just wanna be clear on the timeframe on this because I did hear our duty council say that they would start looking into this right away. The next council meeting, when we would actually have to ratify a committee recommendation made tonight is not until August the 10th.

[5:14:44] And the PEC cycle is beyond that. So respectfully to the mover and seconder on the referral, August 30th is a ways away. Is it not possible to simply get an answer before the next council meeting? And then if the answer provides us some information that’s caused for concern, we could then refer back the committee’s recommendation at council if appropriate. So Chair through you is, Councillor Lewis suggesting that this go right to council then for consideration, knowing that we would have the answer prior to?

[5:15:31] Yeah. I don’t have an answer, Chair. That’s why I ask clerks. So you can certainly, you have in the past asked the civic administration to provide you information prior to the council meeting. You have not made that an official motion. All right. So the motion would be to refer this matter to council and with the understanding we will receive a legal advice at that meeting with regard to any implications of the Veterans Land Act to this application.

[5:16:13] Chair, I’d be comfortable with that. Is that fine? Or do you want something different? Apologies. It would not be a motion. It would just simply ask staff to verbally to undertake that and then they would provide the answer back prior to the council meeting. But we’re not making any decisions tonight. So don’t we have to refer it to the council meeting? There’s like, that’s what I thought I said. Okay, yes.

[5:16:55] So, okay, so we need a motion to refer this matter for decision to council and to direct staff to provide us with legal advice at council with regard to the implications of the Veterans Land Act. Happy to move that, Chair. Okay, so the mayor is moving and then seconded by councilor Hillyer. So that puts the decision off to council. So any other comments on that? Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Yes, I would like to, I’ll be supporting a staff’s recommendation tonight. I do not have a problem getting information before council on the Veterans Act.

[5:17:34] So you don’t want the referral. You want to vote on it tonight and then get the new information accounts. Okay, so you’re going to vote against the referral. That’s what I understand. Okay, other comments on the referral? All right, we’re going to vote on the referral then that’s been set out by the mayor and seconded. If that’s up, Chair, I’ll vote yes. Okay, that’s your vote. It was good.

[5:18:22] Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one. All right, so we dealt with that matter. Next matter is item 3.9, which is the, I should explain for the benefit of the public, anyone who’s still listening to us, that what we’ve done is we haven’t made a decision tonight on that matter. We have referred it to the next council meeting because we want to get advice on any implications of the Veterans Land Act on this application. Does it prevent it? Does it impact it in any way? So that will be on August 13th that we’ll be speaking about it again. Item 3.9 then is a public participation meeting.

[5:18:58] Fortunately not to be heard before 6 p.m. on the Midway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area. And I will need a motion to open the participation meeting, open motions supported by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Unless there’s something else, I’ll open the vote. Chair, I would yes to that. Some people talking in the background, is that? Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[5:19:36] All right. So we will go to the staff, I think, was contained in the added agenda. Go ahead, please. Thank you. Good evening, Councillor Squire, members of PEC, staff and members of the public. Through you, Chair Squire, this is Emily Williamson, a college’s planner and planning and development for item 3.9, found on page 531 of the agenda package. The presentation slides are found beginning on page 915. This is a request to adopt the Midway Valley Conservation Master Plan as a guideline document into the London Plan.

[5:20:14] A separate but related adoption of the Official Plan Amendments and Zoning will be described by my colleague Travis McBeth shortly. Detailed mapping illustrating the limits of the Midway Valley ESA and the Phase 2 CMP mapping are found on pages 935 to 944 of the agenda package. In summary, staff are recommending adoption of the Conservation Master Plan for the Midway Valley Heritage Forest. The Conservation Master Plan process is defined in London’s trail management guidelines for ESA’s. In a summary, the phases can be found on pages 916 and 917. Phase one of the CMP was initiated in 2013.

[5:20:50] Given the eight-year history on this project, there’s a lot to cover, but I will do my best to keep it brief. Council approved Phase 1 CMP in 2015, which delineated the ESA limits and included ecological studies, which have informed Phase 2. Phase 2 included completion of the Sustainable Trail Plan and both technical committee and public consultation. Phase 2 was initiated in 2015 and referred back to staff in 2018. Between 2013 and 2018, consultation included four community open houses, five meetings with a local advisory group, and two presentations to and associated rounds of comments from the Accessibility Advisory Committee, Environmental Ecological Advisory Committee, and Nature London.

[5:21:35] The 2018 Council resolution can be found on pages 755 and 756 of the agenda. Staff have resolved these items and the Conservation Master Plan process for Midway Valley. Items one and two. Bridges A and D have been removed from the plan. Jumping to item four, technical trail planning within the ESA was completed through consultation with the Accessibility Advisory Committee, Environmental Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, the Upper Time’s River Conservation Authority, and local First Nations communities. Once complete, staff initiated item three.

[5:22:09] Public consultation with the community regarding the Eastern boundary access and use of public streets in the trail plan. We held a community information meeting on April 8th and received 21 replies from the public. Key concerns identified through the consultation included, safety and crime rates, parking, and access and trail construction feasibility. With respect to safety and crime, city of London experience, including coordination with London Police Services in the past, has not shown that new parks and/or ESA trails and accesses correlate with any increase in crime.

[5:22:43] With respect to parking, a formal study was not completed as part of this review. However, as the neighborhoods adjacent to the ESA would form the primary users of the area, the proposed changes are not anticipated to generate increased parking demand. The roads in this neighborhood are public streets, which permit on-street parking and allow sufficient space such that passage of emergency vehicles is unimpeded. Currently, parking for the Windermere ESA access, access 13 on your map, is located where Windermere Road turns into Ryerson Road. Regarding access construction feasibility concerns, detailed design specifics were not included at this conceptual project stage.

[5:23:22] Upon adoption of the CMP, detailed design and implementation with commence. Staff are committed to working with access adjacent land owners to ensure the concerns regarding the design are addressed, and that the design of the pathway system will be in accordance with city policies and the trail management guidelines. In response to public concerns, staff have removed the directional connection line, formerly yellow, from the trail plan, and are deferring the trail section leading to access 12, Gloucester Road for further technical assessment to demonstrate feasibility. Item five, actions to discourage crossings of the creek at sites A, B, C, D, and E are ongoing.

[5:23:59] And the UTRCA management team disassembles constructed bridges across Midway Creek on an as needed basis. Item six, hardscape services on level two trails will be limited to the greatest extent possible through the detailed design process upon adoption of the CMP. Item B, staff continue to work with community partners to identify funding opportunities that may be leveraged during the implementation stage. Item D one, staff have identified opportunities to improve the conservation master plan process for subsequent CMPs, including defining the technical and public input roles and timing as well as the number of consultation meetings.

[5:24:39] And additionally, item D two will also improve the CMP process by revising the trail management guidelines to incorporate neighboring First Nations community input at the beginning and throughout the process. Changes to the 2018 version can be found on pages 922 to 924 of the agenda. The resulting CMP provides the greatest amount of appropriate accessibility into the valley by focusing accessible trails and areas of least sensitivity, which are the natural environment management zones appearing in yellow, light yellow on the mapping. The proposed CMP is consistent with the provincial policy statement, the official plan, the London plan and the city’s trail management guidelines within ESAs.

[5:25:20] Mr. Chair, would you like me to read staff’s recommendation? Go ahead, that’d be correct. If you feel it’s necessary, then I’ll have you do it. If you feel we’re okay, I’ll leave it. Okay, with that, on the recommendation of the director planning and development, the following actions be taken with respect to Medway Valley Heritage Forest, Environmentally Significant Area South Conservation Master Plan. The proposed by-law attached here into as Appendix A be introduced at the Municipal Council meeting on August 10th, 2021 to adopt the Medway Valley Heritage Forest, Environmentally Significant Area South Conservation Master Plan attached as Appendix B in accordance with London Plan Policy 1421.

[5:26:03] That the portion of the pathway and trail system from Gloucester Road access 11 to its connection with the pathway into the valley shown as Appendix C of the Medway Valley Heritage Forest, Environmentally Significant Area South Conservation Master Plan be deferred to be considered at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee following further consultation and review with the adjacent neighbors, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee. Thank you, this concludes my presentation. A staff and our natural heritage consultant from Dillon Consulting, Jennifer Petruniak, are available to answer any questions you may have.

[5:26:42] I will now pass things over to my colleagues, senior planner Travis McBeth to describe the related Official Plan amendments and zoning related to the Medway Valley CMP. Thank you very much. Thank you, through the chair. As noted by Ms. Williamson, there’s several London Plan in 1989, Official Plan amendments related to the Medway Conservation Master Plan. The first recommendation is that the Conservation Master Plan be added to the list of guideline documents in the London Plan. The hour tools chapter of the London Plan has policies that identify the role and adoption of guideline documents.

[5:27:17] Guideline documents make into standards, performance criteria or additional details or additional flexibility compared to the parent policies of the plan. Policy 1421 also identifies that Conservation Master Plans are to function as a guideline document in directing the management of natural heritage areas. So this recommendation is to amend policy 1719, which is the list of natural heritage guideline documents and to replace an older study with the Conservation Master Plan. The second recommendation is that the Conservation Master Plan be added as a guideline document to chapter 19, it’s section 19.2.2, Roman numeral II of the 1989 Official Plan.

[5:28:05] So noting that the majority of the London Plan is now in force as the new Official Plan for the city of London. And as of April 15th of this year, a decision by the local planning appeal tribunal brought the entirety of the environmental policies chapter into force as well as all of map five, which is the natural heritage map, except for certain sites. And that doesn’t include the Medway. And there was also a partial approval of map one, which is the place types or the land use designations. And that included approval of the green space place type.

[5:28:39] So however, the old Official Plan, the 1989 Official Plan hasn’t been repealed and there are still some outstanding appeals. So to ensure consistency across the plans, the recommendation is to amend the 1989 plan as well as the London Plan and to add the guideline document to both. And then the third part of the related amendments are mapping amendments to the London Plan and the 1989 Official Plan for consistency with delineation of the environmentally significant area feature as identified in the Conservation Master Plan.

[5:29:17] The purpose of that is to reflect what’s on the landscape, map the extent of the ESA feature and appropriately assign the place types and land use designations. So the map amendments are place types, map one of the London Plan, natural heritage map, map five, and then there are equivalents in the ‘89 plan. So the land use map schedule A and the natural heritage map schedule B one. As part of the first phase of the Medway Conservation Master Plan, the ESA feature was evaluated for its ecological significance and the extent of the feature was delineated.

[5:29:52] Council direction at the time was to endorse the delineation and that occurred in 2017. Now that the CMP is being finalized, the map changes are being brought forward for consistency of all the map work. Both the London Plan and 1989 Official Plans have policies stating that ESA’s are to be delineated in accordance with provincial guidelines and the city’s guidelines and that enforce London Plan policies, they note that ESA features are to be mapped as green space place type on map one and identified on map five as a natural heritage feature.

[5:30:28] So the purpose is to be in conformity with those policies and the delineation. Also for consistency, the delineation is being addressed on the 1989 plan for the same reasons of consistency across plans. The subject site for the map amendments is shown on page 12 of the presentation. I’m afraid I don’t know what that is in the hard copy package he received. And then after that, I’ve included pairs of maps for each of them. So the first is the existing map without the recommended changes and then the black line of the delineation there.

[5:31:08] And only where there is an inconsistency between the place type or the designation or the extent of the feature on the natural heritage maps is there a recommended change. And then the second map of each pair is what is recommended as the amendment map and they’re of a coarser grain. So you don’t see as much detail with them. So just as an example, if you look to slide 13 on the presentation, that’s map one of the London plan. And you can see that generally it’s, the place types are consistent with the delineation except for along that eastern panhandle, along the Medway Creek there, there are two areas.

[5:31:48] So properties east of the Elsie Parrod Williams estate on Windermere Road there, you can see that the green space place type extends outside of the delineation. So that is recommended to be changed from green space to neighborhoods place type. And then also a bit further east from that, there are rear yards on Corley Drive South of Windermere where a portion of the neighborhoods place type is within the delineated area. So in that instance, that neighborhood place type is recommended to be changed to green space.

[5:32:21] And similarly with the other maps for the 1989 plan and the natural heritage map, it’s too aligned with that delineation. Just as a final note, the recommended planning amendments are consistent with the provincial policy statement, conform with enforce policies of the London plan, including environmental protection, delineation of ESA features and the adoption of guideline documents. And then the recommended amendments permit place types and mapping that’s consistent with the conservation master plans and represent good land use planning. Thank you.

[5:32:53] Thank you. So I’ll turn over the committee for technical questions please. All right, I have one question. And that is green acres drive. I’m just understanding, I know you’ve made comments about Elsie Perron Williams, the state area and Gloucester Drive. What’s happening with green acres drive in terms of, there seemed to be some belief that there was gonna be access there. Somebody can answer that. Thank you.

[5:33:28] Through the church, Mr. Barrett speaking. The green acres drive access is still identified within the conservation master plan. On the trail mapping that was done, the link that from the… Sorry, the green acres, I apologize. The green acres access is to remain. What is before you is I believe in clause B is a deferral of the completion of that link pending some further study.

[5:34:03] So the conservation master plan still identifies a pathway linkage there, but the actual location of that and the level of that pathway would be deferred subject to some further consultation with the advisory committees and with the neighbors as Miss Williams indicated in her presentation. Great, thank you. Anything else? All right, we’ll go to the public then. I know there is a list. Is you might as well follow that list at this point? Did I start there?

[5:34:39] All right, let’s do that then. Go ahead, you’re in the committee room. So go ahead. Yes, Mr. Chair. It’s George Sinker. I resided 1597 Gloucester Road with my wife Sydney and myself and Tom Tillman and Holden Rhodes have been involved in an ad hoc committee to represent the Medway Heights rate payers with respect to this matter. And we’ve had email chains keeping them up to date with what’s been going on.

[5:35:14] So I would tell you that I believe that we have substantial concurrence with my remarks from the majority of the residents in Medway Heights. Firstly, I would like to thank our ward counselor, Josh Morgan, Deputy Mayor for the assistance that he’s provided throughout and his liaison liaising with the staff has been very helpful.

[5:35:46] And in addition, we’ve had yourself, Councillor Squire and Councillor Layman who have actually walked the area to get a better handle on what is going on there. So we are very thankful for the collaborative approach that staff have taken to this. And I think that this is going to lead to making a good plant great. By way of background, my family’s had the privilege of living adjacent to the Medway Valley for 36 years.

[5:36:22] We did see degradation of the valley when the trunk sewers were installed in the early 1980s and the creation of the utility corridor. Those affected areas have never really fully recovered despite tree planting and other attempted remedial measures. Hopefully time and good management will bring these areas back. As you know, the provincial policy statement as it relates to natural heritage areas, states that natural heritage areas will be protected for the long term and that they should be maintained and restored where possible improved.

[5:36:58] Those policies are carried forward in the London plant. And as you know, Councillors recorded to make decisions consistent with those policies. Accordingly, where there’s a conflict, natural heritage trumps access. And it’s with that backdrop that we suggest certain amendments to the CMP and we’d like to laser focus on those amendments. I believe when staff was asked about green acres, respectfully, when that question was raised, they didn’t get it correct. They were mixing and matching with Gloucester.

[5:37:33] With respect to green acres access, public use of that green acres access is problematic. For 50 years, there have been two paved driveways sitting on that unopened lane. And in addition, there is a brick wall that crosses the entire row width of that proposed access. In addition, there is a pool house that is located on that access. So we suggest that it wouldn’t be equitable at this time. Although perhaps legal, it wouldn’t be equitable at this point in time to open that access point.

[5:38:10] As you may know, due to the advent of title insurance, it’s quite probable that the owners who purchased those properties did so innocently without having an up-to-date survey showing those encroachments. So we suggest that that access not be opened and that it be deleted from the CMP. And that discussion of that access in Emily’s paper, staff’s paper, was not a request for a deferral. It was a request that that access be opened. So I’m stating just the opposite, that it be left, that it be closed due to those encroachments.

[5:38:49] And if the adjoining owners wish to apply for encroachment agreements, that’s really up to them, not up to the city. Now with respect to the Gloucester road access, that is the access that is being deferred this evening. As appendix B to your proposed motion, there is a map of the Gloucester access. And the request is that it be deferred this evening. I’d just like to tell you a little bit about that Gloucester access because it is adjacent to me immediately to the west. And I knew that when I purchased the property, it’s a level one access, it’s a beautiful hiking trail.

[5:39:26] I recommend that it not be increased to a level two access because currently that trail is a looped trail. It in essence is a trail to nowhere at the bottom of the valley. In addition, access to the valley floor at my location is very steep. And in my conversations and our committee’s conversations with our professional advisors and the representative from Upper Thames that sat on the committee, we were advised by UTRCA that if that trail were to be improved with gravels. You’re saying you’re at your five minutes.

[5:40:00] I know what you’re saying is coming from your neighborhood. It’s important. So I’m prepared to go a little while, but I just want you to understand that we have parameters and it’s usually five minutes. I’ll be brief. - That’s fine. We’ve had an architect look at that path and we’ve been advised that if wooden switchbacks were constructed based on the AODA requirements, the minimum length of a ramp that would be required would be 770 feet at a 10% slope and at a 20% and it would require hand drills and guard drills and at a slope of 20%, it would require 1,300 foot ramp to get down into that valley.

[5:40:38] We realize that these decisions on access have been deferred. However, if those switchbacks were to be installed in the valley, they would do severe damage to the natural heritage there. And none of us want that. We’re trying to preserve this valley. It’s a good master plan, but with the green acres deleted and with this access left at a level one, it will be a great master plan.

[5:41:13] The only technical correction I saw in the report is that the implementation date in the report talks about 2018 to 2028 and in fact, it should probably now be 2021 to 2031. So I’d ask that you consider making that update as well. I thank you for your time. Thank you, sorry for going over a little bit. I know it’s late, but it’s quite important to us and we have been patient this evening. Thank you, thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the committee room who is going to speak?

[5:41:47] If you are, you’ll want to come to the microphone. No more speakers in the room. All right, so we’ll go to those who are online. Sandy Levin, I was hoping that perhaps Jackie or Susan and Michael would speak first as part of our delegation. Go ahead. Certainly, I’m happy to, Sandy. It’s Michael Dothorn, Jackie Madden and myself, represented ACAC throughout this process.

[5:42:23] Actually, I’ve been involved in this process for well over a decade, I think, since I first became involved. This round, we worked collaboratively with some of the members from EPAC and tried to find solutions that we thought everyone benefited from that protected the environment, protected the entire valley. It has never been anyone’s intention to do damage to the valley. What we have sought is an ability to have as many people safely, responsibly as possible, enjoy the valley. And I really do believe that we’ve come to a plan that actually does accomplish that.

[5:43:01] I’d like to thank everybody who’s been involved, city staff, the EPAC members, as well as Jackie on this, and as well as everybody here tonight for sitting through a very long meeting. Sandy, I’ll turn it over to you for your comments as well. Thank you, Michael. I share a lot of Michael’s compliments to city staff, staff from the upper Thames. This was an excellent process. And as been mentioned, we have a very good plan here. And I appreciate Mr. Sinker’s comments, but I wanna call to the committee’s attention.

[5:43:41] The challenge that we faced with the east side of the Medway is, and I’m afraid I don’t have, I believe it’s page 943 of your agenda, which is figure four B. And if you look at the map just to the west of A12, there is a informal trail, an unmanaged trail that was recommended for closure 25 years ago. And it goes through an environmentally significant part of the valley as well as across private property.

[5:44:18] And we’re challenged to find an alternative so that people no longer do that. And that’s the idea behind the deferral is to try and find a way to get there. If you close as an option, the unopened road allowance, I’m gonna be challenged to figure out how do we provide that opportunity for an alternative. We’ve done very good work collaboratively, cooperatively, during COVID.

[5:45:02] And I’d like to think that this recommendation that’s before you can go forward. If you want to look at the green acres as part of the deferral, sure, but to totally eliminate it at this stage would be premature. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Other members of the public? Somebody on the line?

[5:45:51] Hello, David. I’m sorry? Heather, hello? Yep, your name is Kathy Davis. Heather Davis? Heather Davis, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that clearly. Go ahead, you have five minutes to speak. Yeah, thank you. I’m at the 1,500 dryer sea road. Been here for 56 years. So I’ve gone through a whole lot with the Elsie Perrin estate and the trails and the Medway Creek. My understanding now is that the city has hired or whatever the Thames Valley is in charge of.

[5:46:34] They’ve hired them to look after the Medway Valley. And I spoke to someone there that was parked in what we call the blind, the end, the west end of Windermere as it goes down into the valley. Used to be Dead Horse Canyon. Horses went through and the horse trails and so on. We had safe trails down there and they were marked accordingly by simple and more advanced.

[5:47:09] There were three divisions. My concern is safety issues that the Windermere and Ryerson. Because the so-called area that is governed by the city takes in that blind area that was for emergency vehicles only. And the signage was put up as such. It’s now become a parking in that area. The signage has gone as far as no parking there. The parking is unsafe.

[5:47:45] There’s a bit of a ditch there. They block and come out onto Windermere facing west. Excuse me, facing east as well as coming up Ryerson, blocking the visibility of that corner. Now, a number of years ago, Bill Watkins, because of the safety and unsafety of it. I mean, the cars were whistling right into the bank of the Windermere state or coming up Windermere, they were ending up on the fire hydrant.

[5:48:21] And certainly living through that and helping them with change in ropes, getting their vehicles back on the road. As I say, I see a safety issue there for sure. And the pedestrian, there’s no sidewalks, which is what the people want. But Bill Watkins at that time, he, I don’t know what you call it, but he curved the road in such a way that it was rounded. And because of the wet pavement and snow and ice and so on, the drainage, he has going down to the ditch and ultimately through the estate as well, under Windermere Road.

[5:49:05] And I too have a ditch at the back of my property on the protected area, in the protected area. But it seems as though there’s a whole lot more traffic in the area, both car traffic, pedestrian traffic, and a lot of pedestrian being that, the university teams are up here with their bicycling teams, whatever conditioning. And the runners are up here and whatever, as well as in the estate.

[5:49:39] Parking is definitely a problem here for getting into the trail on the west end of Windermere and they’re parking on the street. I cannot get out of my driveway when they’re parking on Ryersea in front of my property. I can’t get out, I can’t see. The visibility is just not there. And having the cars, the zoom, zoom, zoom cars go flying around that corner, it is unsafe. You have one minute left.

[5:50:12] And indeed, I informed and sent the incident report of a very horrific accident that happened. It took out 12 feet of cedar hedge, as well as went through three properties, two across the road from me and a bit on my property, as well as almost taking out two adults. So safety, I’m a nurse. I see the possibility of serious accidents, unless we have better signage. And the fellow from the Thames Valley was in the park. He mentioned a couple of things that could be done, one of which was very clever, I thought, was the speed bumps and putting in those, but signage of putting back the signs of no parking.

[5:50:57] I did have a sign to the north of me on the telephone pole. And that was there for years and years. The Hydro and Rogers and Bell did something with the transformer that signed. Your time is up, so if you could just wrap up, that would be great. Yeah, so again, I just wanna point out the extreme safety that is in this area and particularly on the curve that comes around Windermere Ontor Literacy. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. The next speaker, we have anyone?

[5:51:56] That’s it, okay. So that’s the public participation. So I’ll need a motion to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any further comments? For being none, I will call the vote. Carole, vote yes. Yeah. Close in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. All right, questions from the committee. Councillor Hopkins, questions, go ahead.

[5:52:36] Yes, I know Deputy Mayor Morgan is here too. And I just wanna follow up with a comment that we heard from the public regarding the Green Acres connection. Green Acres drive connection and deferring that along with the deferral B, which is the go out just to road access and just wondering what staff’s comments would be on that. Go ahead, staff, if you’d like to answer that.

[5:53:10] Through you, Mr. Chair, it’s Greg Barrett speaking. We’re fine with the deferral of those two matters so that we can do a little bit more work and a little bit more consultation with the advisory committees and with the neighbors. Yeah, there are questions, Councillor. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. I know that Deputy Mayor here is here with an amendment but I would be supportive of that deferral. Yep, I can see him. So I just, but I’m looking for questions right now if I could get people to ask questions that they might have and then we’ll go to any motions and that.

[5:53:47] Okay, so I’ll turn it over to the committee. Councillor or Deputy Mayor Morgan, you have something that you, someone would have to move but you have a suggestion, is it an amendment or something like that? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I’ll make my comments and then the suggestion that I have for the committee, which would obviously have to be moved by the committee. First off, I do wanna also thank our staff on what overall is an excellent plan and many years in the making. And I also wanna thank them, Emily, Michael, and Greg and their team for all the engagement that they’ve done with the community.

[5:54:26] They have had a lot of questions. There’s been public meetings. They have been very accessible and very responsive and Mr. Sinclair mentioned that as well but I also wanted to express my thanks for them. I also wanna thank them for listening to the community on the trail access to the south. Essentially through the process, there was a little bit of mixed messaging given about what the actual final design of the level one or level two trail would look like. And what the community is looking for is some clarity on what a level two trail would look like.

[5:55:00] My understanding is that if the level two trail is not fundamentally different from the path of the level one trail, then there’s no reason not to support the increased level of accessibility. However, if the design requires significant switchbacks and impact on the natural environment, then that’s where the concerns are elevated from the community and that’s my concerns as well. I certainly think that this gives an opportunity for a little bit more detailed design and I think this is an excellent suggestion and approach by our staff. It allows the conversation to continue but with a little bit more information.

[5:55:35] On the green acres access, this has certainly been something that I’ve spent a lot of time on as is the community as has our staff. And Mr. Sinker, I’ve lined a number of the concerns. I appreciate too, and I hope the committee appreciates that they took the opportunity to consolidate a lot of those concerns from dozens and dozens of people into a delegation that represented many of them so that the committee could be done at a reasonable or more reasonable time tonight, I should say. So thank you for that.

[5:56:08] I am supportive of their approach to not take any action at this time. That is not the same as closing the access but a motion to take no action with respect to the implementation of the green acres drive connection is I think an appropriate way forward. And it is neither specifically what the community is asking for nor exactly the same as a deferral but it is setting this aside for now. And I think that that is a way of dealing with this. So I did circulate possible amendment and the clerks have prepared some wording.

[5:56:47] It would include that the recommendation be amended to include the following new B and the remainder of the clause be renumbered in to accommodate this addition B that no action be taken with respect to implementing the green acres drive connection to the Medway Valley Trail pathway system at this time. That is what my preferred approach would be if the community would entertain that. I certainly know there are some other options that you could. That is where I would land on this particular item. I’ll leave this in the committee’s capable hands and listen into the discussion.

[5:57:22] Okay. So we have a motion then to amend the staff recommendation to take note rather than defer green acres I understand is to take no action is that all right. So that Councillor Lewis is prepared to move that and do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Layman. Okay. So let’s have some speakers on the amendment which is to change the approach to green acres. Councillor Layman, did you want to speak?

[5:57:57] I’ll get you after that Councillor Lewis unless you want to go first. Councillor Layman, please. Yeah, sure. Yeah, as mentioned by the delegate, I was out there. I have special interest in the Medway Valley. I’ve been down there many times over the years but especially over the last winter through the pandemic and one of more more favorite spots to hike and I think it’s fantastic that we’re looking at ways to make it accessible for everybody down there.

[5:58:32] It’s such a beautiful part of the city. My tour though, I didn’t realize how many access points there are within a very short distance. So, you know, I think this is a reasonable approach to take with its amendment. We can focus on the other numerous access points to make them as accessible as possible. And I think it’s a very good example of a lot of parties working together to find a solution that works for everybody.

[5:59:10] And at the end of the day achieves the goal of letting them all enjoy this fantastic trail. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard from the delegates and although I didn’t have a chance to take Mr. Levin up on his offer for a visit because of some things that were going on at home, I do appreciate the offer. We did have a good chance to speak about what was coming before us tonight.

[5:59:42] And I always appreciate his feedback. The reason I’m supporting the amendment and moving forward is, you know, you look at the amount of time that’s been spent on this, quite honestly. And I think it’s time to move forward with what’s been laid out for us tonight. And that by simply taking no action at this time on Green Acres, exactly as the deputy mayor suggested, we’re setting it aside. We’re not closing it off. We’re not saying this is permanent, but we also aren’t saying, we’re gonna spend more time and resources on trying to hammer out something here right now.

[6:00:22] And if we were to defer the whole thing and look for that, I, you know, to me it’s just perfect becoming the enemy of good again. I think what we’ve got here is something that everybody can be happy with. And it doesn’t preclude coming back in future years, future councils taking a look at the Green Acres or I have access again, but at this time, I think what we’ve got here is a plan that works for everybody. It’s a good compromise and that’s why I’m gonna support it. Other comments on the amendment, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

[6:00:57] And I really do appreciate comments from the committee. And I think the deputy mayor for being here with his amendment and I’ve heard loud and clear it’s the preferred approach. So I would be supportive of moving this forward, this access into this area that we take no action, I guess at this time. It’s either here nor there, but if this is the way the committee would like to go and I’m supportive.

[6:01:33] Further comments on the amendment, Mayor Holder? Thanks very much. I’m comfortable supporting the motion that’s been moved by our councillors and the suggestion by the deputy mayor. I’m, forgive me Heather’s last name, but I think the comments about safety as well are something that we all are concerned about. And I’m not sure if there’s something that staff can do in the interim as well as we continue to deal with this issue to ensure that safety factor is put in place.

[6:02:08] And I would, I’m not looking to make a motion on this chair. I don’t think it’s necessary, but ask staff to look there, to ensure that appropriate signage and whatever might be needed to protect the safety of all when we’re enjoying that beautiful area. Thanks. Further comments on the amendment, right? I’ll call the amendment. Close in the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[6:02:52] All right, is someone prepared to move the, then we’ll get it on the floor, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Comments on the motion before we call it for a vote? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. You’re doing a good job, by the way. We’re almost there. I just wanna, I know it’s been said quite a few times that it’s a good plan. I know it’s been in the works for many, many years, at least eight years. So it’s finally good to see this here, this plan, going forward and being identified in the London plan.

[6:03:29] I really appreciate the guiding principles on this. As we develop trails and ESAs, I hope we will take note of these principles and apply them to other trails as we develop our ESAs. Councillor Layman did mention how well used our ESAs are now and probably will continue. And finally, the community engagement around this has been wonderful.

[6:04:01] I just really appreciate that. But I would like to say thanks to city staff for the work that they did on this. In particular, getting this plan through COVID and the challenging times and getting it here to us as we approve it. So thank you very much to staff. Any other comments or I call the vote? Call the vote on the motion as amended. Chair, I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[6:04:44] Thank you. And we’ll move on to item, section item 4.1, which is the fifth report of the Trees and Forest Advisory Committee. I think I just need a motion to receive and file. Councillor Hopkins, you’ve heard the move that. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any discussion? Call the vote. Chair, I vote yes. Thank you. Voting in progress.

[6:05:26] Hit it again, again. All right. Mr. Chair, what we have for us is not a receive. There are directions in here. Sorry, then I’m gonna have to, we should go back and look at that. Respectfully, I’m not okay with the directions. Okay, well let’s go back to it then before we do anything.

[6:05:59] So I wasn’t aware of that. So the report of the Trees and Forest Advisory Direction 4.1, can you raise those issues, Councillor? Certainly, so I would be happy to receive the report. I’d be happy to also include the attached document being forwarded to the governance working group. Where I start to get into some trouble here is that the advisory committee has asked us to direct the governance working group to grant delegation status, which I do have a little bit of an issue with.

[6:06:40] You know, we’ve been undergoing this advisory committee review at governance working group the entire time that I have been at City Hall. And for years before that, I don’t think, and frankly, I will say, Mr. Chair, and I don’t mean to impugn motives on any particular member of an advisory committee. But what I’ve seen repeatedly now is, while we want a former working group, we want to talk about it some more.

[6:07:18] We want to, now this one is a request for delegation status. You know, there’s been multiple, multiple, multiple engagements with the advisory committees. By the clerks, surveys have gone out. There have been ample opportunities for them to make, submit information for feedback for us. And I’ve read a tax or DFAC’s report here. You know, I respectfully don’t agree with all of their conclusions, but I’ve reviewed it.

[6:07:53] I don’t need for them to come to another meeting and tell us about these. And I don’t really think that it’s the appropriate place for us to be directing delegate statuses on the request of an advisory committee to another working group of council. Yeah, just to be clear, I’m reading it. It says the following actions be taken, the governance working group be requested to grant delegation status to a representative. So my reading of it is they’re not being granted delegate status, they’re just requesting that they be given delegate status.

[6:08:31] So, I mean, I’m not sure how you can prevent them from asking what the governance committee actually does with that request is an entirely different thing. So I’m just not clear, are you objecting to the facts that they’re going to be requesting delegate status? I just don’t want us to be directing the governance working group to grant it. So I just want to be clear that if they want to ask the governance working group for delegate status, that’s fine.

[6:09:06] I just don’t want to get into this committee really sort of directing the governance working group to grant this delegation status. And I think receiving that’s up to the working group. Yeah, just as a matter of clarity though, I went through this in the last term of council and the legal advice from legal council was when you receive and file something, that’s all you are doing. You’re not necessarily agreeing with them, you’re not telling them agreeing with them at all. If they have an actual direction that we want to agree with, then we would say, I mean, I suppose we could go on and from this report say, well, we as a committee are gonna request that the governance working group be delegation status, but that’s not what this is saying from my point of view.

[6:09:48] So I’m still comfortable receiving and filing it. I am anyway. So councilor Hopkins. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. Those comments are exactly how I read this. I was a bit confused that we are in no way giving any kind of direction to this group at all. I think it’s within the working group. And I know this has come up before and we’ve had these conversations, but I’m quite comfortable receiving this. So our further comments on receiving and filing it, I appreciate the councilor’s opinion.

[6:10:32] It’s just I don’t necessarily agree with it, but no. So we’ll call the vote. For receiving and filing chair, I will vote yes. That’s all we’re doing. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to one.

[6:11:09] And the seventh reported London Advisory Committee on Heritage is somebody prepared to move at receiving file that, moved by councilor Hopkins, seconded by councilor Lewis, any discussion? Call the vote. Getting close chair, I’ll vote yes. No deferred matters, additional business. So I just need a motion for adjournment. Somebody, I hope councilor Hill, you’re seconded by councilor Lewis.

[6:11:42] All those in favor, we’ll do a hand vote. Thanks very much for all your work tonight. It was a long agenda, but it probably had to be go until this time. So thank you very much, enjoy the rest of your evening. What’s left of it? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good night, thank you, Chair. Thanks folks, good night.