Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

September 27, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   995 Fanshawe Park Road West - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-05512)

2021-09-27-PEC-SR-995 Fanshawe Park Road West - 39T-05512

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Landea Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 995 Fanshawe Park Road West, the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to approve a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision File No. 39T-05512, SUBJECT TO the revised conditions contained in Schedule “A” 39T-05512 of the staff report dated September 27, 2021.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1235 Fanshawe Park Road West (39CD-21510)

2021-09-27-PEC-SR-1235 Fanshawe Park Road West - 39CD-21510

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Tyler Peers, on behalf of Calloway REIT (Fox Hollow) Inc., relating to the property located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West:

 

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 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West; 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 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West;

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

  • the staff presentation;

  • a communication dated September 15, 2021, from M. and R. Circelli; and,

  • a communication from L. Mills, Chairperson, Fox Hollow Senior Apartments Tenants’ Association;

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, there were no public submissions regarding these matters.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   1938 & 1964 Commissioners Road East (39T-19501/Z-9015)

2021-09-27-PEC-SR-1938 and1964 Commissioners Road East - 39T-19501 Z-9015

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 of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the properties located at 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East:

 

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to lands located at 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Sifton Properties Limited, prepared by Archibald, Gray & McKay Ltd. (Plan No. 8-L-5276), certified by Jason Wilband O.L.S., dated November 25, 2020, as red-line amended, which shows a total of 12 single detached residential lots, 5 single detached residential blocks, 4 medium density residential blocks, 2 future development blocks, 7 park blocks, 1 open space block, 6 open space buffer blocks, 1 road widening block, and 1 reserve block, served by 2 new streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix ‘A’ appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021 as Appendix ‘B’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend The London Plan by adding a Specific Policy for the Neighbourhood Place Type and to add a portion of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas, of The London Plan;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021 as Appendix ‘C’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan for a portion of lands located at 1938 & 1964 Commissioners Road East by changing the designation on Schedule A – Land Use FROM Low Density Residential TO Multi-family, Medium Density Residential; and,

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 27, 2021 as Appendix ‘D’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in Parts c) and d) above), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR4, Open Space OS4, and holding Open Space (h-2-OS4) Zones TO a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(16)) Zone, a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3()) Zone, a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-R1-4(28)) Zone, a holding Residential R1/R4 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(16)/R4-3()) Zone, a holding Residential R5/R6 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-71-h-100-R5-6(8)/R6-5(31)) Zone, a holding Residential R5/R6/R8 Special Provision (h-h-100-R5-5(  )/R6-5(  )/R8-3(  )) Zone, a holding Business District Commercial/ Office/Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-100-h-128-BDC2(5)/OF5/R8-4(17)) Zone, an Open Space OS1 Zone, an Open Space OS1 Special Provision (OS1(3)) Zone, an Open Space OS5 Zone, and an Urban Reserve UR4 Special Provision (UR4(7) Zone;

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, there were no public submissions regarding these matters;

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

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it achieves objectives for efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. It represents development of low and medium density forms of housing, including single detached dwelling lots, townhouse and cluster forms of housing, and low-rise apartment buildings taking place within the City’s urban growth area and within an area for which an area plan has been approved to guide future community development. It also achieves objectives for promoting compact form, contributes to the neighbourhood mix of housing and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities, supports the use of public transit, and increases community connectivity;

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

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential, Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space designations; and,

  •    the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning represents Phase 6 of the Victoria on the River residential subdivision. In terms of use, form and intensity the proposed subdivision plan is considered appropriate and in keeping with The London Plan, 1989 Official Plan, and the the Old Victoria Area Plan polices and  design guidelines.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following updated instructions be given to Civic Administration relating to the properties located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to work with the Applicant to facilitate the necessary zoning by-law amendment(s) within the Kent Subdivision to allow for a new elementary school;

b)    notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, with respect to the application by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the property located at 2631 Hyde Park Road and 1521 Sunningdale Road West, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back a proposed by-law to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential and Environmental Review designation and to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhoods place type and Environmental Review place type to be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

it being noted that the future development of the lands shall fully comply with the policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type of The London Plan; and,

it being further noted that the costs of any temporary servicing required for these lands shall be at the full cost of the property owner;

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

  •    a communication dated September 8, 2021, from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board;

  •    a communication dated September 20, 2021, from Deputy Mayor J. Morgan;

  •    a communication dated September 13, 2021, from J. Sousa, Brown Beattie O’Donovan;

  •    a communication dated September 23, 2021, from A. Clark, Co-Chair, Sir Arthur Currie Public School Council / President, Sir Arthur Currie Home & School;

  •    a communication from S. Trosow, by e-mail; and,

  •    a communication dated September 23, 2021 from A. DeActis, by e-mail.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:33 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 40 minutes)

[7:23] All right, it’s now 4pm, so I will call the meeting to order. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pack@london.ca. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest? There are being none, and I don’t see anyone on the screen.

[8:02] We’ll go to the consent items, item 2.1 is 995 Fanshawe Park Road, it’s the only consent item. Does someone wish to have that matter pulled? All right, I need a mover and seconder, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any questions about that matter or comments? There being none, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 4-0.

[8:50] Moving onto the scheduled items, item 3 participation meeting relating to 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West. I would just need a motion to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any comments? If not, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 4-0. All right, if we could add a staff presentation, we’re trying to keep the presentations to five minutes, please, if that’s possible. Go ahead.

[9:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s Larry Mottrom here, and I can provide a short presentation. This is a request by Callaway Real Estate Investment Trust, Fox Hollow Incorporated, to consider a proposed draft plan of vacant land condominium being reviewed concurrently with an application for site plan approval. The development proposal consists of 148 three-story attached townhouse units with access from Tocala Trail. The applicant’s intent is to register to the development as one condominium corporation. The townhouse development is proposed for the northerly portion of the property, which is approximately 2.8 hectares in area and is currently vacant.

[10:05] The southerly vacant portion of the site is proposed for future low-rise apartments and mixed-use development. Currently, there are existing commercial uses and restaurants fronting along the north side of Fanshawe Park Road. Council will recall back in December 2017, a zoning bylaw amendment was passed to maintain the existing commercial zoning and add a mix of residential and institutional uses, including apartment buildings, townhouses, stacked townhouses, nursing homes, retirement lodges, and continuum of care facilities.

[10:43] This was consistent with the shopping area place type in the London plan. Council also adopted a specific area policy in the 1989 official plan to permit a range of residential and institutional uses within the new format regional commercial node designation to align with the policies of the London plan and to facilitate and encourage the development of the subject property into a mixed-use format. The Council resolution included specific design objectives to be considered through the site plan approval process. If I generally satisfied that the site plan and building elevations adhered to the provisions in the Council resolution as noted in more detail in the staff report.

[11:26] For example, the site plan and building elevations show front-facing building orientation to both Ticala Trail and Del McGarry Road with pedestrian walkway connections to the public sidewalk. Buildings incorporate a similar level of architectural detail on the front-hand side elevations, linking public streets and walkways, and dwelling units are also designed with front-door orientation and direct pedestrian access facing the common outdoor amenity area. An elongated landscape amenity area is centrally located within the common element and forms an integral part of the pedestrian connectivity network.

[12:03] A 1.8-meter wide walkway connection running east west from Del McGarry Road will connect through the central outdoor amenity area at mid-block and continue onto the western limit of the site. There will also be two parallel pedestrian sidewalk connections running north-south through the common amenity area and are planned to connect with the future development phase to the south. Responses from the public to the community engagement process included comments such as ensuring the proposed townhouses are well-designed and attractive in appearance that there be provision for adequate green spaces both on site and within the neighborhood and concerns about density congestion and adequacy of the existing street infrastructure to support the amount of development activity occurring in this area.

[12:53] Included in the staff report and the added agenda are elevations, color renderings and prospective views both internally and from the street of the exterior building appearance. As previously noted a common landscape amenity area will be provided in a long central courtyard consisting of seating areas, a variety of tree plantings including large deciduous and small flowering deciduous trees, deciduous and coniferous shrub plantings, perennial plantings and ground covered grassy areas.

[13:26] By neighborhood park facilities and open spaces include Takala Woods Park, Water Oak Park and Snake Creek Trail within 400 meters. Sanitary servicing brief was provided as part of the site plan review process. The report was prepared to provide confirmation of an available sanitary outlet for this site and that the existing sanitary sewer on Takala Trail and related downstream infrastructure has sufficient capacity for the proposed development. With respect to concerns about traffic congestion, both Takala Trail and Del McGarry Road are neighborhood connectors designed to handle traffic volumes generated by existing and future development in the area as well as they provide direct connections to Fanshawe Park Road and Hyde Park Road.

[14:15] So the planning and environment committee, our recommendation is to that the committee advise the approval authority of any issues or concerns raised at this meeting with respect to the applications for draft plan of vacant land code of medium and site plan approval. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll turn it back to you. Thank you very much. I understand the agent is here, but only to answer questions they don’t have a presentation. So are there any technical questions from committee there being none, then we’ll move to the public.

[14:47] Are there any presentations? I know we have some added correspondence. Are there any presentations? Through you, Mr. Chair, there are no members of the public for this item. All right. We need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. There’s nothing further I will call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 4-0. All right. I’ll turn it over to the committee if they wish to, could move and second the staff recommendation moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman.

[15:27] Any discussion? Councillor Hopkins. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. About the green spaces, I wonder through you to say that they could expand on the green spaces that are available in this area. I know from some of the concerns from the public, it has been around the use of green space and if staff could just add a little bit more. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think I had indicated the parks immediately within a media proximity to this site were Takala Woods Park and Water Oak Park.

[16:08] Now Takala Woods is more of a natural wooded area just to the north and you can access that park by Takala Trail and it bends northward and you’ll be able to access Takala Woods Park. There is a small playground associated with that park. There is a small playground also associated with Water Oak Park. Now the access to that is a little bit more of a secure route by public road. But there is vacant lands between Delma Gary and the intersection with Takala which may provide in the future an opportunity for pedestrian access to Water Oak Park.

[17:00] So there is a playground there. And then, of course, that’s connected to the Snake Creek continuous trail that runs adjacent with the tributary there. So thank you. Anything further? Anything further? Alright. Any further comments? Then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. Going on to item 3.2 which is a public participation in 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East. I will need someone to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

[17:44] There’s nothing further. I will call the vote. Staff presentation, please. Mr. Chairman, again, now this is an application for draft plan of subdivision and zoning by law amendment by Siften’s properties limited for their Victoria on the river faves 6 subdivision development.

[18:17] It’s located at 1938 and 1964 Commissioners Road East on the north side of Commissioners Road between Shelburne Boulevard and or Sheffield Boulevard and Hamilton Road. The proposal includes a residential plan of subdivision consisting of single detached and multifamily dwellings, parkland, open space and pedestrian pathways, including a ravine crossing and is served by two local streets with connections to new subdivision developments to the east and west.

[18:53] The site area overall is just over 6.8 hectares and the site is currently vacant. We did include in the added agenda presentation, an aerial photograph which identifies an overlay of the subdivision plans, how the public road connections are linked to the existing subdivision road networks to the east and west of a natural feature, which you’ll see is a wooded ravine and tributary corridor which flows in an orderly direction. The London plan place types are neighborhoods and green space.

[19:34] In the 1989 official plan designation, the designations are low density residential, multi-family medium density residential and open space, as well as their special policies with respect to the old Victoria community planning area. And the zoning currently is Urban Reserve, UR4, open space and holding open space H2OS4. The main issues and considerations were outlined and are covered off in more detail in the staff report, but I’ll just highlight a few of those, including the natural ravine and channel corridor, pedestrian crossing, the multi-family block, block 44 proposed to specific policy amendment, as well as pedestrian and multi-use pathway connections.

[20:28] With respect to the natural ravine and channel corridor, this corridor consists of deciduous forest and swampy wetland type vegetation communities, including patches of skunk cabbage and other groundwater indicator plants, environmental impact studies, hydrogiological and water balance assessments, geotechnical and slope assessments and storm water management reports have been prepared and have been reviewed by the city and the UTRCA. The woodland communities and the wetland features within the ravine lands have been evaluated and will be protected within an open space block and adjacent open space buffer blocks as shown on the environmental management plan and on the red line revised draft plan.

[21:19] The recommended buffers include a minimum 12-meter buffer along the easterly edge of the natural feature and a minimum 10-meter buffer along the westernly edge. The environmental management plan specifies additional requirements for buffer planting and restoration areas. The city and the UTRCA staff are satisfied that all related environmental reports and studies have advanced to a point where they can be finalized as part of the design study stage in accordance with the recommended conditions of draft plan approval. With respect to the pedestrian crossing, Oreo Drive was previously identified as a collector road after further review by council and staff, the official plan was amended in 2017 to remove the road crossing and avoid environmental impacts and costs associated with a full public road right of way.

[22:19] A footbridge at the end of Oreo Drive connecting to Holbrook Drive and a pedestrian pathway connection to the neighborhood park was proposed as an alternative to a public road. The footbridge crossing for Victoria on the river is identified in the 2021 development charges background study update. The owner through conditions of draft of approval will undertake the scope, the EIS, the detailed engineering and design and construction and installation of the pedestrian bridge and costs directly related to the project are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with the city’s DC bylaw with respect to the multifamily block block 44 recommended specific policy amendment.

[23:02] The applicant has requested a special provision, a zone for block 44, to permit low rise apartment buildings up to 60 meters in height or four stories. In conjunction with the zoning request staff have included an amendment to add a specific policy to the neighborhood place type and a corresponding amendment to the 1985 official plan as the requested special provision applies to a multifamily block having frontage on the neighborhood street and that being Kettering Place. The site also fronts on a neighborhood park and backs on to open space lands. It also has a grade that slopes down approximately nine to 10 meters from Kettering Place towards the top of the ravine on site stormwater attenuation controls, including surface water collection and rear yard infiltration systems are to be incorporated into the common areas in the landscaped open space to maintain surface and grow groundwater flows.

[24:01] So given the topography and the adjacent hydro corridor easement, these proposed further constraints and challenges to the development of the site. So staff feel that a small scale low rise apartment building alone or in conjunction with cluster townhouses would be considered appropriate. It also was compatible in a good fit with the existing adjacent low density residential and multifamily developments surrounding the neighborhood park. With respect to the pedestrian and multi-use pathway connections, the existing neighborhood park which is known as Sheffield Park is well integrated with the subdivision plan through the provisions of additional park land and open space and the multi-use pathway system and public sidewalks and streets.

[24:49] The Thames Valley Parkway, the multi-use trail within Victoria on the river subdivision has already been completed. It is located along the south side of the Thames River. Scirts the edge of the metal leewoods ESA and terminates on the west side of Sheffield Boulevard at Commissioner’s Road East. So it’s planned to extend westward along Commissioner’s Road to and through the Metal Park Ridge subdivision and to the city wide sports park pathway alignment options will be considered in conjunction with future development applications for the intervening lands on the north side of Commissioner’s Road East.

[25:26] So we do have recommended redline revisions to the draft plan which basically involve rounding out the open space areas around the ravine as well as removal of the pathway which is currently shown within the open space buffer on the east side of the ravine in order to minimize disturbance as this area is intended for naturalization and planting of native species. The adjacent public road provides an alternative route for walking and cycling and that’s constant avenue and it was intended to provide a window street to the open space corridor.

[26:05] So staff’s recommendation is that this is a development and it represents phase six of the Sifton’s Victoria on the river subdivision. The draft plan and the official plan and zoning amendments are appropriate and consistent with the provincial policy statement and keeping with the intent of the London plan, the 1989 official plan and the old Victoria area plan policies. We recommend that the approval we recommend a council request that the approval authority issue draft approval for the draft plan and subdivision as redline revised subject to the conditions appended to the staff report and that council approves the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments.

[26:47] Thank you. And the agent is here with a short presentation, I understand, and Zootie, I just saw her, is the agent? Oh, hi. Sorry. I had some internet connection issues and so I just got reconnected so I was going between my phone and my computer. So. Okay. Go ahead.

[27:20] Let’s say thank you very much to staff for all their work with us on this application. It has taken us a little while to get through the process, but I think that we have worked together well and the conservation authority to resolve issues. We are in agreement with the staff recommendation. I have our ecological engineering and the hydrogiologic consultants available by zoom as well. Should there be any technical questions other than that, we don’t really have any comments. We’re just happy to see this proceeding so that we can continue to develop our Victoria and complete the Victoria and the River neighborhood as this is the connection really between our existing one and the development to the east.

[28:02] And so this will actually complete the neighborhood as a whole. Thank you. Any technical questions for either staff or the applicant, they’re being done. We will go to the public. Through you, Mr. Chair, we have Walter Rock. Mr. Rock there, please. I saw him earlier too.

[28:58] Hello. Yes. Mr. or Mrs. Rock? Yes. Okay. We’re here at the planning and environment committee waiting to hear your presentation. You have up to five minutes and you can start whenever you would like. Oh, we don’t have any presentation. We just want to because we live in the neighborhood and we just wanted to know what was going to be happening in here. Okay. So you’re just listening to see what we talk about and what we decide? Yes, correct.

[29:31] Okay. Won’t be too exciting. But if that’s true, you want to do today, I’ll leave it to you so you can just listen then. Thank you. That’s okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public? All right. I need a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis. There’s nothing further. I would call the vote. Chair, it’s the mayor. Yes. All right. Thank you.

[30:08] 25 to zero. All right. Someone can get it on the floor. Moved by Councillor Layton. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. Any comments or questions from committee? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to give my thanks to city staff and the developer for the changes that they made. I know this came to us a few years ago and the changes to avoid having that road crossing across that ravine and creating those challenging environmental impacts is very much appreciated. I know the pedestrian crossing is still going to go forward and having access for this community is going to be important.

[30:50] I want to comment on the work around the accessibility of this pathway as well as the park. There is a concern and a need in communities and I found even in my ward without parks the need to make our playgrounds for instance accessibility for all has becoming a question in our neighbourhood. So I want to thank everyone for that. The mixed uses in this development as well as the protections around the ravine and the storm water controls that are going to be implemented is very much appreciated.

[31:29] So thank you. Thank you. Are there questions or comments? If not I will call the vote. Thank you. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5-0. Moving on to items for direction. We have one item item 4.1 which is 2-6-3-1 Hyde Park Road and 15-21 Sunningdale Road West. There are no presentations. There are documents that have been filed from Mr. Pratt, Deputy Mayor Morgan and Mr.

[32:07] Sousa and all of them I understand are available if questions are to be answered from the committee and then there is written correspondence from that’s been added today from the co-chair of the school council, Arthur Curry, Mr. Troso and Ms. Deactes. All right. So why don’t we start with questions? Any questions that the committee might have in relation to this matter to staff or any of the others who wrote letters? No questions?

[32:42] Okay. So if someone interested in bringing a motion and we can get something on the floor, Councillor Layman. I believe there is a motion drafted by the deputy mayor and I’d like to put that on the floor please. Oh, you’re going to move that? I will move that. All right. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Lewis. All right. So there is a motion now on the floor which is in the same terms as that in the letter from the deputy mayor which is a page 156 so I’ll open it for any comments. Deputy Mayor Martin.

[33:21] Yes. Thank you, Chair. Maybe I’ll start off by just providing some context on why I brought this forward and I know that our staff can answer questions as can the others who drafted letters and my letter was really to bring together the other two letters from the school board and Auburn developments, as you can tell from their two documents, there is a possible course of action that the municipality could take to facilitate their ability to bring forward a school a few years earlier on the south side of Sunningdale Road that would displace an existing development on those lands and as you can see from the letters, Auburn is looking to relocate some of that work to the north.

[34:05] I know this is not withstanding the previous direction from our staff if colleagues recall earlier this year, a proposal was brought forward to both bring forward the lands to the north and put a school block on them. At the time there was concerns with a few things related to the school, putting a school on that block and crossing a busy road in Sunningdale. Also the timing of the school which would take quite a long time and I’m not going to go through all the detailed correspondence that you received from the school community but it certainly details the very extensive need for dealing with that situation as quick as possible.

[34:40] What has come before us is a possibility to move all of that timelines forward and address many of the concerns on the school side. I will say it’s still not withstanding the recommendation of our staff and so I’ve worked with our staff to say if we were to essentially bring this forward and it is not withstanding your recommendation, what should it look like? And that’s where I got the very specific language in Part B of the direction before you. I also added it being noted clause that were concerns that were raised by committee members about the costs of temporary servicing.

[35:14] I would anticipate that those would all be at the expense of the developer. So what I’ve tried to do with this is address a number of the concerns that were raised with the committee. I know it’s still not withstanding our staff’s recommendation. It deals with a number of concerns in my community and the 1,000 students and 2,000 plus community members related to that school who have certainly a strong interest in what’s going on here, if not the key interest in what’s going on here. And I’ve tried to put something together that brings it all together so that we can go to the next step in this process. And what is being asked is not to make a final decision today but to bring forward some zoning changes for a public participation meeting at this committee as well as — and this was language I got from our staff facilitate the zoning amendments for the other piece.

[35:59] That does not mean anything aside from when the application comes forward and it would have to come from Auburn on that site south that we just do what we always do and that’s work with a developer on the lands and the conditions of the land and try to help move that forward. But still, it would go through every single same process at every other application before this committee and council would go through. So I also know Mr. Barrett, Mr. Cossifist can answer any questions on this as well from our staff’s perspective and I would be happy to answer further questions. So I expect there will be some debate and I’m certainly happy to engage in that but I’m a guest at this committee and I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[36:36] Thank you very much. Anything from the committee in terms of comments? Go ahead. Councillor Hopkins? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I did notice the mayor waving his hand too. I’m not sure if he — up there before me, but I’m happy to put that — Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I did not catch that. Is that all right with you? Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, so since you’re asking for comments from the committee, I’d like to bring forward my comments and, you know, first of all, I would like to, you know, I think Deputy Mayor Morgan for his advocacy for his constituents.

[37:20] I think Deputy Mayor Morgan and I share awards that are very similar when it comes to development and I think I’ve got a few more infills than you do but the need for schools in not only in our awards but across the city as we approve all these development applications, I’m starting to hear the need for schooling as being forefront in our conversations now. And I — so I have that empathy and understanding and really how can any of us refuse a school to go in our neighbourhoods, that’s definitely with the demand in our areas.

[38:01] But I have some concerns and considerations and if this motion does not pass, I would like to add a few amendments or another motion that I’d like to bring forward. But I’d like to speak to around the concerns that I feel as a planning committee member, we are changing an official plan right here and I do not have the information that I need to go ahead and make that decision. And I would suggest and request that we should have all the information in front of us. Are we changing a whole subdivision?

[38:40] What exactly are we doing? I know this came before us maybe six months ago and it’s going to come back to us through an application process in a PPM, but right now I am making a decision to not only change the official plan, but bylaws and I would like to have a little bit more information here. So I would encourage committee members to at least think about having more information here in front of us as we today make a decision to change the official plan. I would also request from the committee too in a motion that I would like to propose added to that that the Tins Valley School Board be here to explain why this official plan amendment is needed.

[39:31] So with that, I am willing to hear from other committee members why we need to do this right away. I know there is a rush to get this school going, the provincial government has approved the school and I do think that we right now are almost a proven an application that I do not have in front of me. And that is a concern and I would like to see how this is going to work and how precedent setting this may be as we hear a committee just make changes. The official plan to me is a document that I take seriously and it is there is a lot of work that goes into it.

[40:17] There is a lot of work that staff are committed to when it comes to the official plan and I just do not take a change like this lightly. Those are my comments for now looking forward to hearing other comments from committee and other Councillors. Thank you. I just understand you want to bring a motion if this particular motion fails. Is that what you are looking to do? Are you looking to amend this motion? I did not quite understand. It may be contrary that if I can have a friendly amendment I would like to add those two clauses. But what are the two clauses?

[40:50] The two clauses would be that we refer the request to rezone the property at Hyde Park and Sunnydale to civic administration to work with the applicant, the province, the Thames Valley District School Board to provide a detailed application, including location mapping and to report back to a future meeting of the PAC and as well that the school board be requested to attend the planning and environment committee when the civic administration report comes back.

[41:25] Okay. So you are asking for a referral which I do not think is an amendment. It is a referral which would take precedence. So I will put the referral on the. Okay. So that’s a referral with the conditions that you’ve attached to it then? Yes. But I’m happy to hear comments from committee. Well, the referral takes precedence over. That’s my referral then. Okay. Thank you. So there’s now a request for a referral and you’ve heard the the grounds for that. So the referral takes precedence. And so let’s we will I will hear submissions then on the referral. Mr. Mayor, I know you wanted to speak to the substantive motion. Do you want to? Well, I’m sorry.

[42:05] Yes, you’re quite right. I do need a seconder and I missed that part. So both you and and Councillor Lewis have recommended that and I agree. So let’s see if there is a second year for your referral. There is not. So the referral will fail. And thanks for bringing that to my attention. Is there something you want to do in terms of an amendment or do you want to just hear the rest of the debate and I’d be very interested in hearing from committee members and Councillors? Yes. All right. So we’ll leave it at that for now and we’ll we’ll carry on with the debate about the main motion. Mayor Holder, you wanted to speak to the main motion? Yes. Thanks. Thanks very much, Chair. And I will support the main motion. And there’s a number of considerations. And I think that the communications we’ve received from the Thames Valley School Board from Brown B.D. on behalf, O’Donnell on behalf of the client and I think the Deputy Mayor’s letter outlines the case pretty well. Look, these are challenging times. I think the need to be creative has been never more critical than it is now. And here where we have a situation and I really appreciate that both Councillor Morgan and Councillor Hopkins acknowledged their critical need for schools, particularly in the fast, fast growing areas of the city and the West End. And this will not be the last school that comes in front of us, a school request. But we’re here. We have a situation where we can keep it status quo. This could fail. And we can add years to the approval process because that’s what it is. Or, and again, I will give a stroke, positive comment to the Deputy Mayor for having worked with both the school board and the and with the developer because to find out what I consider creative solution. And what I appreciate about it is it takes years off the process of putting students in seats. All you had to do was read the tough, tough letter from the parents at Sir Arthur Curry School to know how dire the situation is. And if you can imagine, we’re going to have more people in portables than in the actual school. And, you know, so I think the school board’s been very, very clear. And I’m pretty comfortable with where they are in terms of the in terms of the need.

[44:38] I like the timing issue, a chair, and, and, and, you know, I think it’s about the kids. And, and so, Auburn doesn’t have to do this. The developer could just simply keep with their application. It takes the time it takes. It’s whatever it is. And we have no school. But they’ve come up with, I think, a clever way to deal with to satisfy both ends. I remind colleagues that this, this development on the north of Fanshawes within the urban boundary. And, and I think that’s, that’s a significant piece. And, you know, I think some challenging times sometimes requires some, some unique ways to deal with the situation. And I think this is, this is what I believe has happened here. So for all the reasons articulated in the letters and in the, in all that I’ve read her, I’m more than pleased to support the report. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. I know that Councillor Halmer was here at this moment, but he is back. Go ahead, Councillor Halmer. Thank you. Just through the chair, I think you said that there were folks available to answer questions. Yes. I did have a couple questions. Okay. Yeah. Is Mr. Pratt from the school board here? This is my first question is, okay, wonderful. So my first question is how the new school in the Kent subdivision will help with the overcrowding issue at Sir Arthur Curry specifically. I’m not a school board trustee or directly involved in the school planning thing. So I just want to make sure I really understand because my understanding was that the new school in northwest was applied for to deal with some existing problems, including, you know, a whole bunch of students in holding zones that were going to other schools that aren’t Sir Arthur Curry. So I wonder if Mr.

[46:22] Pratt could just explain, you know, to what extent this will help with the existing problem at Sir Arthur Curry. I know it’s not the only school where they’ve got overcrowding issues across the whole system. Now, I understand Mr. Pratt isn’t here. I was told he would be here. So that’s, I don’t know why Mr. Pratt is not here. I was asked if people should attend who wrote the letters. And I said, that would be really helpful to the committee. And so for some reason, Mr. Pratt is not here. Can anyone else help with that particular issue? Probably not. I would have thought Mr. Pratt would extend himself to be at the committee today.

[47:04] Well, I’ll see if I can find out the information outside of the meeting. I appreciate that. My second question is for Auburn. I see Mr. Stapleton. I wonder if you see the person I should be asking. Yeah. So I get my question for Mr. Stapleton is pretty straightforward, which is, will Auburn sell the land to the school board without getting the sort of approval for residential north of something? Can you just sell the land to directly and forget this other part, the condition? Thank you. Mr. Stapleton. Yes. The opportunity that’s before us is related to the lands to the north. That is what we have under agreement with the school board. And this is an opportunity that presents itself because of the items that were raised in the last meeting being the safety issue crossing Southdale or Sunnydale, sorry. And so the answer, the quick answer is no. That’s not part of the application. This is a solution that was brought forward. And we’re we’re we’re willing participant in it. Okay. So I think that’s it for questions.

[48:12] I’m sure you want to wait and comment. Yeah. Did you want to do comments later? Or did you want to just, I don’t know if there’s any more questions or I didn’t mean to catch up? I might I might as well just get it off my chest now. So I really appreciate even though I’m going to say some things that are pretty strongly against what W.R. Morgan is suggesting, I really appreciate where he is coming from. And he’s trying to solve a problem that’s facing parents in the in his area. We got these schools that are absolutely over capacity. And it’s a huge issue. It’s not just a huge issue. It’s throughout the career. It’s a bunch of schools throughout the city in multiple different boards. It’s really difficult. And, you know, I think the solution that I found some Morgan, W.R. Morgan has brought forward agree with it. But I think it’s coming from a really genuine place. So I think there’s there’s two options that are better than this one. And and I’m only opposed to the sprawl part, like the let’s built some residential and ad residential inside the urban growth boundary without going through the usual process of having a secondary plan looking at their growth boundary, adjusting urban growth boundary. If we add some lands into their urban growth boundary, taking other lands out, that’s the process for adjusting urban growth boundary. We need to have a secondary plan plan, the whole area, not just one little component. It’s a huge problem for me to to not go through that process for this particular piece of land when we expect that from everybody else on every other idea to bring lands inside their own growth boundary to build residential on what is currently open space or green space.

[49:44] And I just, I think it’s a huge problem to go around that whole process, all the policies that are laid out in that official plan, the London plan. So I think it’s a big mistake. But, you know, if Auburn was willing to sell the lands voluntarily in the Kent subdivision to the school board, I think we’d get all the benefits without having to have this, you know, premature development to the north and be dealing with that outside of the normal process. We just search for Mr. Stableton. Unfortunately, they’re not willing to do that. But I guess the great news is there’s a there’s another option, which is the school board can expropriate the lands. And school boards in our area have done that because they can’t find the lands available for sale for what they need. They are growing quickly. And that’s an option that’s available to the Thames Valley district school board for these lands if we’re talking about now or some other lands where they might need to put a school. And that’s why they have those expropriation powered, which are, you know, limited and supervised by the province, but they do have those powers. And I just want to raise that. But we know that that is a possibility. It’s not exactly a quick moving process. Certainly, I’m sure it’s a last resort kind of approach, but I do think it’s possible. And I would prefer it to what’s being proposed here. The last thing I want to say is it seems to me like the problem we have is that the school capacity is lagging behind the residential growth rate in this area and adding even more residential, even faster, seems like we’re making the problem worse because we’re not adding a new school. We’re just getting a school there a bit sooner. And we probably need yet another school. And by the time it gets there, we’re going to have added all these residential units to the north. And I just think we’re making the problem worse. We’re kind of compounding the growth problem and the mismatch between the school capacity and the residential area. So that’s why we have to be careful about how we plan to residential is so we can avoid making these growth related problems even worse by adding residential areas prematurely. So I actually think the solution has the potential to make the problem worse. Where would those students north of San Diego go to the same school that has the problems with this school here, which will be over capacity by the time it gets built. We’ll probably have portables on it as soon as it’s built. So I don’t think this is going to solve the problem. It’s definitely going to contribute to not really well planned growth in the north at a time when we need to have growth in the city elsewhere.

[52:11] We have all these other lands that are made for residential that need to be built out. There’s lots of them. And I’d like to see the growth in residential units happen in those areas. So if Auburn is not willing to do it voluntarily, I think that’s a real shame. I think it would really be helping the community to sell those lands and market value to the school board, let them build a new school on it and not leverage it into trying to get the development to the north to happen. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go back to the committee then, Councillor Lewis and Councillor Turner. I’ll come to you next one, son. Someone in the committee wants to speak. I’ll get you next. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask a very quick follow-up question to Councillor Halmer’s comments and then I’ll reserve my comments till Councillor Turner get his in. But I have a question through you to Mr. Stapleton and follow-up to what we just heard from Councillor Halmer. Is your timeline for — if this was to proceed, you have the opportunity to proceed with residential development on the south right now, basically.

[53:19] Would your timeline on the north be the same, or would the residential development that this proposal suggests on the north, would that be on a different time scale? Mr. Stapleton? Yes, through you, Mr. Chair. It would be on a different timeline. What this affords is takes away the urgency from staff to process applications to meet the need for the school. The future applications for the north, there will likely be an opportunity for schoolboards again through that process to add school sites there as well. So you’re not contributing to the problem when Councillor Halmer raises. It’s actually given another opportunity to have a school site in the normal process. So the answer is, it would relieve some stress and some urgency associated with the application. And that’s why we’re willing to forgo what we had was a firm opportunity with a builder to build on those lands. It’s been in abadance until this application gets heard. So that’s the urgency from our point of view to whether we’re going to proceed with the school on this site or a townhouse development. So that’s kind of where we’re at with this. Thank you. That’s helpful. Mr. Stapleton, in the future, if you could just answer the questions, referring to what a Councillor said and sort of disagreeing with the Councillor is not the most helpful thing to you. You’re not part of it. My apologies. Part of the debate. Okay. No, that’s okay. Just wanted to remind you.

[54:52] Councillor Turner, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks for having me to the committee today. I have a few questions as well. The first is, I guess, strict to staff, if I could, if they might be able to recap the challenges with what’s being proposed here and why it’s contrary to some of our growth management policies, I think that’s important to put right out on the table right at the beginning. Thank you. Mr. Barrett, are you a person who would answer or someone else? Through the chair, maybe I can get started. But also, Mr. Yeoman is here who brought forward the recommendation initially. I’m in your hands of who is best or able to address that. If it’s one of you or both of you, go ahead. Sure. Why don’t I get started and then I can rely on those other folks to jump in. When this came before you back in May, the recommendation of staff was to refuse the request. And that was based on, and it has been discussed by the Council this evening, the concerns around the desire and the need to do more comprehensive planning by looking at these lands within a secondary plant. That was driven primarily by two things, and it’s the same as the discussion that’s occurring tonight. The need for comprehensive review as to how these lands would grow, be serviced, and be integrated with other lands that could possibly be added. And the Mayor noted that that these lands are sitting alone on the north side of Sunnydale, but they are the northerly, essentially, or growth boundary. There are no other lands. And we don’t know if other lands would be added. So there was a concern of how you would comprehensively plan for these lands. And that relates to things like the road pattern, the location of significant community facilities, and the need to understand the full servicing implications.

[56:49] The proposal that’s been discussed and worked between the proponent and the school board right now, would address two of those significant concerns through what Councillor or Deputy Mayor has put forward. And that is the issue of the comprehensive review or the comprehensive integration of these lands. There’s an understanding that it would be within the full context of the policies of the neighborhood place types, the lightning plant. And that gives us direction as to how, even on this smaller parcels land, those lands should develop what the appropriate range of uses should be and how we could establish the patterns of the connections to the existing neighborhood. The second significant issue is related to the servicing. And that’s also covered off in that any of the temporary services that would be required would be at the full expense of the proponent and the applicant. If you remember, a lot of the concerns turned on the servicing and the fact that we did not have the full servicing for these lands. And I believe one of the staff members put it quite succinctly when they say we don’t like to dig a hole twice. With the temporary servicing being at the expense of the proponent, we won’t be doing that. And there are temporary servicing solutions that could be worked at that would be at their expense. It would not compromise future servicing for a larger area if and when those other lands were added. And then another twist that’s come forward through this discussion that’s occurred is that the significant community facility that was proposed in that original draft plan of subdivision was the school site. And if you remember, staff had significant concerns about the location of a significant community facility on the corner of that property without knowing how that might be integrated with those other lands. With the moving of the school south of Sunnydale within an existing community, that integration is not a concern. A significant community facility would not be located north of Sunnydale. And so how that facility might interact with additional lands if and when they were to come in is not a concern that we would see at this point. So those really, I think, are the main points of discussion that the committee and council had when this came forward. If you remember, at the committee came out with with no decision, the committee was couldn’t sort of land on the position. And it was council who sent it back for us to help facilitate these discussions that have occurred and to come back after those discussions. And that’s what’s in front of you this evening. And I don’t know if I’ve missed anything if Mr. Felberger, Mr. Yeoman have anything to add. If they have anything to add, now it’s time to do it. Doesn’t stop. I’m sorry. Nothing further to add, Mr. Chair.

[59:43] Okay. Thank you. Do you have another question, Councilor? Yeah, if I might. Thank you. So the thing that kind of strikes me in reading the letter from Mr. Pratt is there’s no request here. It’s an update letter. Have we received a formal request from the Board of Education, either from the Political Body Board of Education or from the administration to intervene and modify our growth management policies to accommodate their school staff to the chair? No, and I’m not. I don’t understand the connection to the growth management policies. The location of the school south of Sunnydale will require a zoning bylaw amendment and to a point that Councillor Hopkins was making earlier in the discussion, that will come back through a full through a full public review process. We’ve not yet received an application for zoning amendment on those lands. So there are other steps that will involve decisions of Planning Committee and Council and will involve consultation with the community before we come forward, even with the school south of Sunnydale. But there’s been, to my knowledge, there’s been no application made yet to address the rezoning on those lands. Thanks. So, Councillor Helmer identified some of the options available to the Board. And Councillor Hopkins identified that it would be important to be able to hear from the Board. And Mr. Cherry, you were also seeking that it would be helpful to have somebody from the Board be able to answer questions.

[1:01:30] It seems a little premature, a little challenging to entertain a motion like this when we haven’t been asked by the Board to be able to do this. And so that’s why I’m a little curious about all of this. There are options that are available for the Board to exercise. One is to freely negotiate. Two is to expand another school. That sounds like a little bit more of a challenge from my understanding. And third is to expropriate those. So it’s weird for us to be drawn into this. And we had some discussions at previous Council meetings about levels of government and which government does what? The city doesn’t build schools. We will zone for the schools.

[1:02:16] But we’re not part of the land negotiation. So I’m a little curious as to why we’ve been drawn into this challenge. Completely recognize what Deputy Mayor Morgan is trying to accomplish. I completely recognize the challenge with the crowding within the schools. However, I really don’t see this as our fight to fight. And I’m not sure what we get out of it. We’ve been drawn into a three-party negotiation without a benefit to the municipality. The Board gets something. Auburn gets something. We give something up. And that’s concerning to me. It’s kind of like if your neighbor was to sell their house and make the new owner had the condition that they got to use your pool as part of the purchase. And you didn’t have anything to say about. So I don’t know why we would give that right up. So I think it would be really important. I see where the committee is going on this. I’ve already heard from a number, certainly the majority, to be able to support this motion going forward.

[1:03:29] But I think it would be really prudent for us to take a pause after the Board coming before us, make the request before we take any forward action on this. They have not explained to us why they haven’t been able to do the things that he’s in their power to do and why those aren’t options to them. And I would direct you to the letter. There is no request in that. All it is is an update as to this status of negotiations with Auburn. And there’s nothing that says we’d like the city of London to do X. So I hear the arguments. I hear the concerns from the parents. I read the letters. I understand all of that. But why are we in this? So I’d put that to the committee to contemplate. But I would really recommend that the best way for the committee to dispose of this would be to defer this and request that the Board make a formal request and presentation to the committee for us to contemplate.

[1:04:28] Thank you. Councillor Layman. Thank you. Interesting comments that I’ve heard today. So I look back at when this first issue presented itself to this committee. And there’s been some changes since that. We’ve heard from city staff that big issues such as servicing and school site planning have been addressed in discussions with the developer and, you know, facilitated by a deputy mayor.

[1:05:17] It also has changed for me is the seriousness of this issue. When first presented, it was a case of, you know, considerable overcrowding. But it has since come to light. It is an untenable situation where we have over half the school and portals that school designed for 500 pupils and they have over 1,500 portables and growing. It’s conceivable that a student could spend its entire student life at this school in a portable. To me, that is the serious issue in front of us today. You know, I’m very cautious of getting into whose jurisdiction this is.

[1:06:00] Even the day, these are London citizens. These are London taxpayers. So, yeah, in a perfect world, a school would have been planned would be being built right now. But that’s not what’s in front of us right now. We have a serious issue right in front of us right now that requires a bit of give. Planners, of course, would like to have a secondary plan for the whole area once the urban growth boundary is expanded, if ever it gets expanded. You know, we would like have a perfect issue or the school board would have plans for schools, not only for this area, but for future development already planned. But that’s not where we’re at today. What this will do, if this motion goes through, will buy the school board time to get other schools planned, you know, to address the issues ever raised by other councilors here that, yeah, this is going to fill up. And the pupils north of Seine-Dell and that will, yeah, they’ll need a place to go as well. But it buys us time to get those schools planned. What I don’t want to see is this situation where we have so many students in London, Ontario, having a tire school career, elementary school career, in portables. It shouldn’t have happened that we’re here at this point, but we’re able to do something about it. And that at the end of the day is the deciding factor for me in supporting and making this motion. Thank you. Councillor Caster, you go ahead.

[1:07:49] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for recognizing me to your committee. I have a question for staff. And are there other land outside of the urban growth boundary where there have been discussions with the owners looking to bring them to expand the urban growth boundary so that their land can be developed? Or is this a rare occurrence? Go ahead, Scott. There are no discussions about bringing lands into the urban growth boundary, but there are always discussions about bringing lands into the urban growth boundary. We’re constantly being asked when that opportunity is going to arise. And there are certainly lots of inquiries about expanding urban growth boundary. That process is a process that’s very much regimented and regulated through the province. It’s something that we will be coming back.

[1:08:46] It’s called the comprehensive review. And the plan act requires a comprehensive review be undertaken or council consider whether or not a comprehensive review is undertaken at least 10 years after the adoption of a new plan and at least every five years thereafter. We’ve not yet started that comprehensive review process. Your current official plan was council adopted in 2016 and is still going through some appeals right now. But certainly given changes that have occurred in London over the past number of years, it is something that we’re going to be looking at. Right now, we’re proposing to come back to council later in the new year after the results of the census that was undertaken this year start to roll out and we start to get an understanding, a better understanding of our growth.

[1:09:40] The significant inputs that go into that whole comprehensive review study is starting with an understanding of what your population employment and household growth is going to look at or look like. And we’re going to do that based on the best available data, which would be the results of the census that occurred this year. Once we have those data, then we would start that exercise. So we’ll be coming back to you in 2022 about what that process looks like, but we’re not doing that now. And certainly we would not be recommending or entertaining any expansions to even growth boundary outside of that process.

[1:10:16] Councilor, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I almost called you your worship. Thank you. That’s all right. Mr. Chair. So I asked you that possibly Mr. Stableton can answer. I’m wondering what they’re envisioning for this land. Do they have any plans for a significant portion of the units to be affordable units? Go ahead, Mr. Stableton. Mr. Chair, it’s Jack Susai. I think Mr. Stableton had to fall off this because he has a minor variance hearing at five o’clock. Perhaps I can be of assistance. I’m not sure if he’s on or off. Well, he’s not answering. So not answering, you or nobody? I Councillor Cassidy, I don’t know for sure. My only comment can be that my understanding is that this will still be the subject matter of a comprehensive planning process that will address many of the issues that have been spoken to this evening. But I can’t specifically comment with respect to what you just asked. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of comments.

[1:11:52] I worry that if we take this roundabout approach and again, this is not not withstanding the work that the Deputy Mayor has done. And I do appreciate the Deputy Mayor seeking solutions. I worry about sending a precedent. And if there’s another way that somebody can come up with a creative way to get around the urban growth boundary and do some residential development, I worry that we’re going to see more and more of these. I also am very disappointed that nobody from the school board was here to answer questions. It’s my understanding that it’s not just Arthur Curry school that has this overcrowding issue and it’s not just Arthur Curry school, or maybe even not even Arthur Curry school that would have their overcrowding alleviated by the new school that has been approved by the province. So my worry is if the new school is built and it’s to deal with overcrowding in other schools, then this will not fix the problem at Sir Arthur Curry school. So I really do think we need to hear from the school board on this. What exactly is the new school supposed to address? And because I don’t want to set up false expectations in these parents that are looking for a solution to their problems.

[1:13:15] And the only power that the City Council has in dealing with these issues at schools and school boards is in our own policies. So it’s our own policies years back that led to urban sprawl, that led to the hollowing out of the core and led to the closure of other schools. And so when we are when we are pushing people to buy cheaper land on the outskirts of the city, rather than then continuing to invest in the core areas of the city, it’s causing people to move, it’s causing the schools to empty out, and then the school board closes those schools, and then what happens? We need to build new schools on the outskirts of the city.

[1:13:58] It’s not going to fix the problem. It’s going to continue to snowball and see this problem continue. So those are my comments. I also know that in some of the correspondence we’ve received about the housing shortage, there’s no housing shortage in luxury homes and there’s no housing shortage in luxury condos. The housing shortage is in affordable homes and affordable housing for Londoners, and those are the problems we need to address. So those are those are my comments. I’m happy to hear what the committee decides to do, and looking forward to a more fulsome debate at Council where I hope we have some response from the school board as well. Thank you.

[1:14:41] Thank you, Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to try and keep my thoughts organized on this one. I want to be clear. This is not being directed at Councilor Cassidy who just spoke because I actually agree with her that the lack of density in years past has actually created some of these problems. I kind of wonder if we want this developer, and this is in my own head, do we want this developer to develop anywhere? We don’t want to seem to let them develop subdivisions on the north. We don’t seem to want them to develop density in the core. I’m not sure why this developer keeps running into into regular problems with their proposals, but that’s that’s aside. What they are as a business, they’re they’re not a charity. What we heard is that they’re willing to delay the benefits, the economic benefits to them by a few years and develop on the north instead of the south in exchange for providing this land to the school, which I think is a benefit to the community and to us as a city. Councilor Turner asked, what are we getting out of it as a city? I agree with him that trying to put this diplomatically and furious about having to carry the province’s water yet again. Let’s not limit this to the school board. It’s provincial policies on funding for new schools that has created this problem. That’s the long and short of it. A school board should not have to be able to prove that it’s going to be at capacity on day one before it’s approved for funding for a new school. They should be taking a look at our demographic data and letting schools build larger than the capacity ahead of time so that they’re planning for growth.

[1:16:38] So where colleagues are raising concerns on this, I absolutely agree with them that you know the buck actually stops with the province in terms of getting funding out the door for schools to be built. But we have a problem here that we have an opportunity to help take years off of and improve the quality of life for students who are going to be attending schools in the northwest. By moving ahead with this. And those young people are going to be contributing to London for decades to come. And so what we are getting out of this is, and it’s not going to fix the problem tomorrow, but it is going to shorten the time that some of them may spend in portables.

[1:17:21] And if it was my son or my nephews who had to use porta potties as washrooms at their elementary school, I would be demanding that people did something about it. And I’m hearing from the parents that they want something done about it. And we have an opportunity to shave some years off of this. So I’m absolutely willing to do this. You know, we heard staff say three of the significant issues in their reasoning against this have been addressed in that the servicing is going to be paid for by the developer and put in. By the way, if the school board was to expropriate land, they’d have to also pay for the cost of some of the infrastructure to development around it, the sidewalks for students to get into the school. We also know that expropriation is the longest and most expensive way to obtain land, because then they have to pay legal fees they have to compensate generally above market rate, not at market rate, for the loss in profit that the person who’s losing the land would experience. So to me saying, well, they can expropriate, that’s not an answer. That’s actually going to extend the time frame further out than what it is right now. So I can’t see expropriation as a way forward. We’re not expanding the urban growth boundary. And let’s be perfectly clear. This parcel of land is inside the urban growth boundary. The proposal is to change it from a green space to a neighborhood place type and make an official plan amendment and go through the environmental review piece and all of those things. But it is not expanding the urban growth boundary piece of land. It’s in question that the the developer wants permission to move to a neighborhood place type is already within the urban growth boundary. So I don’t actually accept that this is an argument about sprawl. And in fact, when this was before us the last time, and when staff talked about, you know, reviewing the urban growth boundary and lands that may or may not be brought in, I recall some comments then about this land is likely to be developed in the future as we bring in new land. So it’s not that this land is going to sit vacant forever. So we have an opportunity to designate the place type now, shave years off of the school process, improve the quality of life for families whose students are using porta potties as washrooms by the hundreds. So that’s what we’re getting out of it is we’re responding to our constituents concerns in a way that’s going to be really meaningful in terms of timelines. The school board has the funding. They don’t have the land.

[1:19:55] If they have to pursue expropriation, they’re going to have more time and more expense. If they wait for the north block to be open, well, that’s, you know, that’s after an urban growth boundary review, which is going to be years out. So that community facility on the north concern that staff indicated have been removed from their previous objections is being addressed through this proposal too. So this is actually to me, and I take Councilor Hopkins comments very seriously, like an official plan amendment is not something that you should do lightly. I agree with that, but I don’t think this is a situation that anybody’s taking lightly.

[1:20:33] I think we have a serious problem here. And no, this is not a silver bullet that’s going to fix the fact that we are going to continue to have population challenges in our schools across the city, probably in the Lambeth area that Councilor Hopkins represents as well. And in other parts of the city, because we have a funding problem or a formula problem at the provincial level in terms of how this funding flows out to school boards so that they can build these new schools. And I hope that the counselors who are expressing their concerns about this today are going to help us make this a provincial election issue next year too and raise this with representatives of the provincial government that we have today and those who may seek to take office next year, because we do have to address this. But for me, this is this is one that is very easy to move forward on because it’s a solution that is going to save years of time for families who are feeling the impact right now. Thank you. My apologies, Mr. Cott. So if you had your hand up for a long period of time, and I didn’t get to, so I want to give you a chance now if there was something you felt you wanted to respond to. Thank you, Chair. Just a few things that some of the questions we have been having conversations with the school board, and it is their belief that this new school would house about 802 new students, and they believe it is the only relief that would assist in the current overcrowding in the area, which they’ve indicated is about 500 students at this point and growing up towards 1000 in their opinion. Also, the issue of expropriation did come up. Obviously, that is always a tool that is available to them. However, they would prefer obviously to come up with a solution that would avoid that process. And then the other piece that I think that came up, and by the way, the school board is unfortunately the individual that we had spoken to, has been talking to us about this proposal. It was unavailable this evening, but could be made available in the future. The last piece was about the urban growth boundary, and I could ask, Mr. Barrett, to provide some commentary about that. But the proposal in front of you does not change the urban growth boundary. Hopefully, that’s just some of the information that we have. I think that will be very helpful. Thank you very much. Again, I apologize. It’s sometimes difficult to follow the debate and see the questions that are asked, so I apologize for that. Deputy Mayor Morrie. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to make a few comments based on the debate.

[1:23:13] First off, I am glad Mr. Cotsufus went just before me, because at the common was made, you know, how did we get drawn into this? And I would say we directed our staff to be involved in this process at a previous committee meeting where we said work with the board to try to find solutions, and they’ve been doing that. And Mr. Cotsufus has a lot of ability to respond in the way he did, because he’s been working with the board on this not just today, but over the course of the months that proceeded. And so I just wanted to say that that was the case. The other reason, and I really want to appreciate that my colleagues have said they understand why I brought this forward.

[1:23:52] Obviously, I am the one with the constituents who are directly impacted, and there are a lot of them, and I also deal with the daily situations there. I will say that the municipality is impacted by schools and overcrowded schools in many different ways. The traffic on the street is very bad. It’s a very common complaint I have. There is pressure to be able to do drop-offs in the morning to the point where they are now working with the city to use the local district parks parking lot to allow staff to park on a temporary basis. We’ve also put in a number of pieces of infrastructure in the area, including PXOs and other things to support some of the movement of students around this. Overcrowding at a school very much impacts the municipality. And thus, I think it is appropriate for us to be involved where we can. But how are we involved here? We have two parties who have come together with a potential solution that requires the municipality to take some action. And I want to go back to what I’m actually suggesting and the motion that my colleagues have put on the floor.

[1:24:51] We are not making a final decision on any of these matters yet. And I do think it’s appropriate if the board can come forward and address some of these questions in one of those processes. And perhaps Mr. Cotsufus can get some answers directly on the relationship to Sir Arthur Curry School in advance of the council meeting. But what we’re asking here is to move kind of the steps forward so that we can move into the public engagement processes on all of these items. The application that would come forward for the lands of the south would be a regular application that would go through the regular public participation meeting and all the things that you would have to do to change the zoning to add a school zone on that. The lands to the north, as you can see directly in the motion, direct this to come forward to a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. What I think everybody has tried to do here is address a number of the concerns that were heard by this committee earlier this year. And Mr.

[1:25:50] Barrett did a really great job in response to Councillor Turner’s question about how a number of those concerns that our staff had have been alleviated with this particular proposal. So I think it’s worth taking this to the next step. Certainly I recognize that I will feel this in a different way in the neighborhood than my colleagues were, but I really appreciate that that colleagues are seeing that the next step in this process has a number of other advantages to us moving forward. I’m unclear on how this can be precedent setting. I think this is a very unique situation, to be honest, and one that Council has directed to be involved in by having our staff work with the School Board to try to find solutions. It is a very unique set of circumstances that have led to this challenge, and I don’t share a lot of concerns there.

[1:26:38] On the idea of sprawl, in this proposal we’re displacing existing planned housing in our plans, putting some of it north. Is that all of it? No, there would certainly be more. And I think Councillor Caster raises some good points about what type of housing is going to go up there, and that is dealt with through some of the other processes that we can engage with them on through public participation meetings, engage with our staff on the rezoning. And so I think a lot of great comments have been made. I appreciate that the committee looks prepared to take this to the nice agreement down to me. Mr. Sousa, we heard what you said, whatever it was. All right. Sounds like… Please mute yourself. So I appreciate the discussion today. I certainly appreciate that my colleagues, even if they’re not supportive, have heard and understand the concerns of the parents in the area. And that’s really important to me, that you hear that there are concerned parents who are looking for solutions, and they do not care about a jurisdictional battle or fight. They’re looking for all parties, and any parties, who can be involved in finding a solution to do so. And that’s why I’m involved. I think that’s why our staff is involved. That’s why a developer is involved, and that’s why the school board is involved. And I appreciate the dialogue today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

[1:27:56] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to make a few comments. Really appreciated the efficacy from Deputy Mayor Morgan in his ward. Really appreciated everyone’s comments. I would like to just follow up and just add to some of the questions I heard from my committee members around the process of planning schools in our municipality. And this is really important to me because I have a number of challenges in our schools, in my ward, and the need for more schooling.

[1:28:38] And the process is that the provincial government proves the school. We have an approval to the north. There are a number of applications in front of the provincial government for further approvals. And I am looking forward to that coming to us soon. For me, I think information and understanding the process is vital. This is not a municipal conversation when it comes to where can we put a school and should we have a school? The province does that. I also appreciate some of the comments around the need for funding and the need for planning. To me, maybe this area should have been planned a little bit more in the past for school as we put in these developments.

[1:29:37] It’s vital that we aren’t caught here as a municipality having to just change our official plan. And I’m a little disappointed that I didn’t even get support to defer a request to the school board to be here to address the planning committee. To me, that is at least what we should be doing. I’m glad to hear that there’s staff. There may be opportunities coming forward to us. But it gets right back to me that we are proving development without a secondary plan. The process is in place without really having the information in front of us. I know there’s a comprehensive process that will be undertaken. I heard it from staff. I’ve heard it from the deputy mayor that we tonight are directing staff to propose a by-law to amend the official plan to change the designation.

[1:30:44] So as we have the comprehensive process that will continue after we give this direction, I have concerns about how that is going to happen and how upfront we are. For me, it’s almost a political decision. Do you support it or don’t you? And I am not there yet. I still have difficulty understanding the precedent setting that may occur here. It’s not saying this will happen. But I think it does open up as a municipality to further challenges. So I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you. Any further comments? Councilor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to draw a colleague’s attention to one other point that’s relevant in this. There’s already an application in on these Northlands. An application that’s already passed the due date for a decision by this body. So we could have something that we really don’t like coming forward because we haven’t made a decision on the land so far, which for me is all the more reason to look at an opportunity that’s being offered. In what I would say is, frankly, something I feel that, and I use this term carefully, but I feel like is being offered in good faith by the developer to say, “We’ll forego,” and I mentioned this in my earlier comments, “We’ll forego building some housing now. We’ll build some later on the other side of the road, and you can let the school board start building the school sooner.” But they have an application in on the Northlands, and we have not made a decision on that. In fact, if I recall correctly, in May, when this was last before us, we had not made a decision on that. So we’re well past the point on this piece of land for making a decision. So I don’t think, in this case, we are getting the card ahead of the horse on the North side because we already passed a decision date on an application for that parcel of land. Thank you.

[1:33:00] Any other comments? Maybe I could just turn the chair over to the deputy mayor. He’s over there. The vice chair of the committee, so I can make some comments. Yes. Councilor Squire, go ahead. Thank you very much. So I have an interesting perspective on this, obviously, because I was actually a school board chair, and sat as a trustee and was chair of the London District Catholic School Board when we were facing this same challenge. So it’s a very, very difficult challenge for school boards to find locations and finalize schools. Certainly, I was involved in it when we did St. Andre Bissette Secondary School, and it was very challenging, also with elementary schools. We had a French immersion school that was very, very dated, and we had to find a new location. So in doing so, school boards have to do a couple of things first of all, they have to meet the criteria set out by the government. And when I first became a trustee, I said, well, how quick is that? How does that work? Well, you make your application, and you wait, and you hope, and that’s what I was told. And so you wait for the time when it’s approved, and you hope it’s approved. And at the same time, you’re trying to stay up with the development of the city and the demographics of the city to decide where you’re going to locate that school. So you’re doing those two things together while you’re educating children and keeping up on all of those different things. Without a huge number of staff, I might add, to be focusing on this, at least the London District Catholic School Board. So it’s a huge challenge. And I think, as a school board trustee, I wanted all the help I could get from the city. I needed all the help I could get from the city. So I think the information we’ve received from the parents and the school board and their staff has made it pretty clear to this that, no, it doesn’t explicitly say, please do this to help us. I don’t think it needs to. I think it sets out what has to happen.

[1:34:59] I am not as concerned about what we were doing as some of my colleagues. I understand that. On the last occasion, there were issues that came forward that were of concern to staff, that there was going to be a school located there who was going to do the servicing. And a lot of those concerns are now gone. And when Mr. Barrett was asked the question about the concerns remaining, they were not large that were remaining. The question was asked, and the question was answered. And it appears clear to me that we can accommodate this. We can do this and help the school board and help the people who live in the area. The last thing I want to say is, I think, don’t think we should think this is a situation that it’s precedent setting. It’s not precedent setting. It’s one situation. We’ll deal with another situation next week, and we’ll vote on that.

[1:35:46] This isn’t a court. This is LANDU’s plan. The last thing is that we will be following stringent processes. We haven’t promised anybody anything. All we’ve said is, you’re going to make an application on the lands for the school board. It will be considered. What you do with the piece, yes, we’re making an official plan amendment, but what you actually put on that lands is going to be scrutinized and go through the same process. I have to say, I’m not as concerned about this as some of my colleagues. I don’t see another way to do this, but I’m very, very happy that I’m getting a chance since I’ve been a school board trustee and now I’m a counselor to help out a school board. Further comments?

[1:36:26] Counselor Squire, before I return the chair back to you, I just want to make sure I thought I did see a hand, but if there’s anyone else that would like to speak, please raise their hand. I do see one. It’s Counselor Turner, and I will return the chair back to you. All right. Go ahead, Counselor Turner. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I actually just had one last quick question, and it’s just with respect to servicing. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for adding your perspectives. I think it’s helpful. I knew that I was looking forward to hearing from you based on your experiences as a school board chair. It is helpful. It’s still conspicuous that we haven’t heard formally from either the board or the administration, and I think those are important points, but I do recognize the board’s do need their help. But my question was, one last one is through you to staff by might about why we don’t normally create situations where an applicant or a developer might pay for their own servicing. Why do we use development charges and capital works reserve funds to do those servicing rather than allow kind of ad hoc or independent servicing of their lands? Staff? Through you, Mr. Chair, so it’s Mr. Young. I’m happy to speak to that. Through you, Mr. Young. Mr. Young. Yes, sir. Did something happen to your computer? It just was quite loud there for a second. I think you’re better now. Okay. Well, my apologies, and please feel free to let me know if that’s occurring again through you, Chair. So we always want to make sure that the major infrastructure that’s required for development is identified through a master planning process, and we do have policies through your development charges background study and bylaw that differentiate between what’s recovered for through DCs that’s paid for through DC funding and what’s directly provided for by the developers. In this case, the developer is proposing a temporary servicing solution. Our policies generally state that we don’t, we discourage temporary solutions, and we only permit them when the ultimate servicing solutions are known for development. At this time, we don’t fully know the ultimate servicing solution for sanitary and stormwater, or sorry, sanitary and water for the lands. That is a concern that we do have. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:38:53] Thank you. Any further go ahead, Councillor Hopkins, you’re am I doing something wrong? No, Mr. Chair, just Councillor Turner made me think of the question through you to Mr. Young. So when will you know the costs of the sanitary sewers, since we really do not know the municipalities budget amount, if we have budgeted for this, through you, Mr. Roman? Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. So we will be reviewing our master plans with the development charges study update for 2025. At that point, we’ll be looking at all lands that are designated for growth within the boundary. If the lands are designated, they’ll be included with that master planning study. If the lands are not, then they won’t be considered at that time unless there is a decision to designate or bring additional lands into the urban growth boundary. So we won’t know the permanent solution until we actually have further decision points in the process. Okay, anything further before we call the vote on the motion? All right, I will call the vote. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:40:14] Closing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 1. There are no deferred matters, so I just need a motion for a German moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis, and a hand count will be good. Mr. Mayor, you don’t say anything to put up your hand? Excellent. All right, where adjourned, have a great evening, everyone. Thanks for your help, and thank you very much for the very, very good debate.