October 18, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED to no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.7 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   6th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2021-09-23 EEPAC Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 6th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 23, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   7th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-09-22 TFAC Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 22, 2021:

a)  the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to make the Urban Forest Strategy and Tree Plating Strategy documents publicly available on the City of London website instead of being available by request, for transparency and to facilitate better public understanding; it being noted that the document as appended to the agenda, with respect to Plant More: Tree Planting Strategy 2017-2021, was received; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   8th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-10-06 ACE Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 8th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on October 6, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   600 Sunningdale Road West (H-9394)

2021-10-18 PEC SR 600 Sunningdale Road West - H-9394

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Corlon Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 600 Sunningdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Holding Residential Special Provision R1 (hh-18R1-9) Zone TO Residential Special Provision R1 (R1-9) Zone to remove the h and h-18 holding provisions.

Motion Passed

2.7   1478 Westdel Bourne - Wagner Subdivision Phase 1 - Special Provisions (39T-20503)

2021-10-18 PEC SR 1478 Westdel Bourne Special Provisions

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Townline Orchard Property Limited, for the subdivision of land over Con BF Pt Lot 50, situated on the east side of Westdel Bourne, at the midway point south of Oxford Street West and north of Byron Baseline Road, municipally known as 1478 Westdel Bourne:

a)    the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Townline Orchard Property Limited, for the Wagner Subdivision, Phase 1 (39T-20503) appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)    the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.5   Environmental Management Guidelines Update

2021-10-18 SR EMG Update - FULL

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Environmental Management Guidelines (2021) appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix ‘D’, BE CIRCULATED for public review and comment in advance of a Public Participation Meeting to be held at a future date; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a staff presentation with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.6   Housekeeping Amendment to Secondary Plans (O-9346)

2021-10-18 PEC SR Housekeeping Amendments to Secondary Plans O-9346

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the housekeeping amendment to Council-approved Secondary Plans, the draft changes appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information and BE CIRCULATED to stakeholders and the general public for comments; it being noted that an Official Plan Amendment to amend the Secondary Plans will be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   415 Oxford Street West (O-9335)

2021-10-18 PEC SR 415 Oxford St - O-9335 - Full

2021-10-18 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Edmar Land Ltd., relating to the property located at 415 Oxford Street West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type that would permit building heights up to 8 storeys (12 with bonus) within 150 m of Oxford Street West and buildings up to 4 storeys beyond 150 m from Oxford Street West and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan; it being noted that The London Plan amendments will come into full force and effect concurrently with Map 7 of The London Plan;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated October 14, 2021, from A.M. Valastro, by email, with respect to these matters;

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

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

-    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, that encourages higher density residential development within transit supportive areas. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

-    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, the Green Space Place Type, the Rapid Transit Corridor, and the Specific Policy Areas criteria of the Our Tools Section; and,

-    the recommended amendment conforms with the 1989 Official Plan, including permitting higher density development along transit corridors, encouraging diverse housing types, and the criteria for special area policies.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1 Commissioners Road East (O-9339/Z-9340)

2021-10-18 PEC SR 1 Commissioners Road 9339O-9340Z

2021-10-18 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of One Commissioners Road Inc., relating to the property located at 1 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the  proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London (1989) to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to permit two, 8-storey mixed-use buildings with a total of 157 residential units and 826m2 of commercial space resulting in a maximum density of 233 uph on site to align the 1989 Official Plan policies with the Urban Corridor Place Type policies of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed , revised, by-law as Appendix “B BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Office Special Provision (OF5(2)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC(  )*B-(  )) Zone;

it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of two high quality mixed-use commercial/ residential buildings with a maximum density of 233 units per hectare and a maximum height of 30.5 metres (8-storeys) which substantially implements the Site Plan and Elevations attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

  1.    Exceptional Building Design

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

i)    the inclusion of a height element at the corner of Commissioners Road W and Wharncliffe Road S, along with providing a well-defined built edge at street level along both Commissioners Road W and Wharncliffe Road South;

ii)    well-defined principal entrances to all of the commercial and residential units along Commissioners Road West; 

iii)    a variety of building materials and articulation break up the massing of the buildings; and,

iv)    purpose-designed amenity space on top of the roof of the structured/covered parking entrance approximately 112.0m2(1,200 sq. ft.);

  1.    Underground parking

  2.    Provision of Affordable Housing

the provision of 7 affordable housing units which will include 4, one-bedroom units and 3, two bedroom units all within the first 8-storey mixed-use building to be constructed.  The affordable housing units shall be established by agreement at 80% of average market rent for a period of 50 years.  An agreement shall be entered into with The Corporation of The City of London, to secure those units for this 50 year term and the term of the contribution agreement will begin upon the initial occupancy of the last subject bonused affordable unit on the subject site. The Proponent shall be required to enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement with the City of London;

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

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

  •    the revised recommendation and by-law;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021 from C. Linton, Norquay Highland Ridge Properties Ltd.;

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021 from L. Holmes, CEO, Larlyn Property Management Ltd.; and,

  •    a communication dated October 15, 2021from C. Johnson, Managing Partner, AutoPoint Group;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the in-force policies of The London Plan including, but not limited to, the Urban Corridor Place Type policies. It also conforms with the in-force policies but not limited to the Key Directions, Homelessness Prevention and Housing policies, and City Design policies;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property and encourages an appropriate form of development;

  •    the proposal for a mixed-use development with 826m2 of commercial and 157 residential units is consistent with the planned function of the Urban Corridor Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment meets the criteria for specific area policies in the 1989 Official Plan;

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

  •    the recommended bonus zone for the subject site will provide public benefits that include affordable housing units, barrier-free and accessible design, transit supportive development, underground parking and a quality design standard to be implemented through a subsequent site plan application.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West (39T-21501/OZ-9295)

2021-10-18 SR 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West 39T-21501

2021-10-18 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2515060 & 2539427 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021, to amend the 1989 Official Plan to change the designation on Schedule “A” - Land Use FROM “Low Density Residential” TO “Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential” for Block 37 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Urban Reserve UR1 Zone TO  a Holding Residential (hh-65h-100R1-2) Zone, a Holding Residential Special Provision (hh-65h-100R6-5(  )/R8-4(  )) Zone, Open Space (OS1) and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision of 2515060 & 2539427 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West:

i)  potential impacts on the quality of residents’ well water;

ii)  negative impacts to the water table;

iii)  loss of privacy;

iv)  lack of a buffer such as a fence or a privacy wall;

v)  increase in traffic;

vi)  increase in accidents and only one entrance for residents and emergency services;

vii) noise impacts;

viii)  lack of public transit;

ix)  no consideration given to a new police and fire station; and,

x)  loss of habitat for wildlife;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by 2515060 & 2539427 Ontario Inc., (File No. 39T-21501), prepared by Stantec, Project No. 161413678, dated November 8, 2019, which shows 36 single detached lots (Lots 1-36); one (1) medium density residential block (Block 37); one (1) walkway block (Block 38); one (1) open space block (Block 39); two (2) road widening blocks (Blocks 40 and 41); three (3) reserve blocks (Blocks 42, 43 and 44); and two (2) new local streets (Street A and Street B), SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “C”;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to Our Strategy, Our City and the Key Directions, as well as conforming to the policies of the Neighbourhoods and Environmental Review Place Type;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Density Residential designation, the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential designation, and the Environmental Review designation;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the policies of the Riverbend Area Plan;

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan, the 1989 Official Plan, and the Riverbend Area Plan; and,

  •    the recommended draft plan supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, mid-rise apartments along the Oxford Street West corridor.  The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   584 Commissioners Road West (Z-9357)

2021-10-18 PEC SR 584 Commissioners Road West

2021-10-18 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., relating to the property located at 584 Commissioners Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the application review process:

a)    the relocation of the private outdoor amenity space to a centralized and pedestrian friendly location;

b)    the provision of sufficient space between the parking lot and the east property boundary to accommodate enhanced landscaping; and

c)    configuration of the parking area to allow retention of the Black Maple, denoted as Tree 386 of the Arborist Report (Stantec, February 23, 2021);

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   Masonville (Final) Secondary Plan (O-8991)

2021-10-18 PEC SR Masonville-final-plan-O-8991-FULL

2021-10-18 Public Comments 3.5

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the draft Masonville Secondary Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO ADOPT the Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “A”, Schedule “1”;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan, TO ADD the Masonville Secondary Plan to Policy 1565, the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan at such time as Map 7 is in full force and effect by ADDING the Masonville Secondary Plan to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas and DELETING specific policy areas 9, and 10;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 TO ADOPT the Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “D”, Schedule “1” and TO AMEND the Official Plan (1989), as follows:

i)    AMEND Section 20.2 TO ADD the Masonville Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

ii)    ADD Section 20.10 as the Masonville Secondary Plan;

iii)    ADD the naming and delineation of the Masonville Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “D”, Schedule “2” to Schedule “D” – Planning Areas;

e)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 TO AMEND The London Plan by DELETING policies 821, 822, 823, 824, and 825;

f)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 18, 2021as Appendix “F” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 26, 2021 TO AMEND the Official Plan (1989) by DELETING sections 3.5.25 and 3.5.26.

g)    The Masonville Secondary Plan BE REVISED, as per Council direction on September 14, 2021 as follows:

i)    any future redevelopment of 109 Fanshawe Park Road East should provide enhanced buffering, screening and landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site at Fawn Court;

it being noted that the direction provided by Municipal Council on September 14, 2021 in g) i) contained an error in the location specified and a revision to the plan will correct the error and provide better clarification that enhanced buffering, screening and landscaping should be provided along the eastern boundary of the site as opposed to the western boundary;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated October 12, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Rock Developments; 

  •    a communication dated October 13, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of 1635 Richmond (London) Corp.; 

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Copia Developments;

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021, from R. MacFarlane, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Choice Properties REIT; and,

  •    a communication dated October 14, 2021, from L. Kirkness, Principal Planner, Strik Baldinelli Moniz, on behalf of Westdell Development Corporation;

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

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

i)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which:

-    promotes opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment, taking into account existing building stock or areas;

-    promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation;

-    promotes healthy, active communities by planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of the public, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity; and,

-    supports long-term economic prosperity by maintaining and where possible enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets, encouraging a sense of place by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; and,

ii)    the recommended amendment is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan (1989) and The London Plan that provide direction to prepare a Secondary Plan where a more detailed and coordinated planning policy framework is required for redevelopment and intensification.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   250-272 Springbank Drive (Application for Brownfield CIP Incentives)

2021-10-18 SR 250-272-Springbank-Drive - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2355440 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 250-272 Springbank Drive:

a)    a total expenditure of up to a maximum of $2,895,020 in municipal brownfield financial incentives BE APPROVED AND ALLOCATED at the Municipal Council meeting on October 26, 2021, under the following two programs in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Brownfield Incentives:

i)    provide a rebate equivalent to up to 50% of the Development Charges that are required to be paid by 2355440 Ontario Inc. on the project, as follows:

A)    if development charges are paid in one lump sum amount, the Development Charges Rebate will be issued in three equal annual instalments; and,

B)    if development charges are paid annually over six years, the Development Charges Rebate will be issued in six equal annual instalments, noting that any interest charged by the City of London for deferred development charge payments is not included in the rebate;

ii)    provide tax increment equivalent grants on the municipal component of property taxes for up to three years post development;

b)    the applicant BE REQUIRED to enter into an agreement with the City of London outlining the relevant terms and conditions for the incentives that have been approved by Municipal Council under the Brownfield CIP;

it being noted that no grants will be provided until the remediation work is finished, a Record of Site Condition is filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and receipts are obtained showing the actual cost of the eligible remediation work; it being further noted that the agreement between the City of London and 2355440 Ontario Inc. will be transferable and binding on any subsequent property owner(s);

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated September 28, 2021, from R. Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc., with respect to these matters;

it being further pointed out that the request for delegation status for Ric Knutson, Knutson Development Consultants Inc., Bo Chiu and Scott Aziz, EXP, with respect to the properties located at 250-272 Springbank Drive was withdrawn;

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

  •    the development represents a significant investment on Springbank Drive and near the downtown including the construction of 260 new residential units on a fully serviced and remediated site;

  •    the development includes the creation of 28 of affordable housing units that will help in addressing the growing need for affordable housing in London. The development is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and its Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock;

  •    the development will eventually generate significant tax revenues over and above the grants that are provided. At full project build out, the municipal portion of the taxes are roughly estimated at $865,000 per year; and,

  •    brownfield incentive applications satisfy the Growing our Economy and the Building a Sustainable City Strategic Areas of Focus in the Strategic Plan for the City of London 2019 – 2023.  This includes directing growth and intensification to strategic locations and increasing public and private investment in strategic locations.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) June, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

2021-10-18 PEC SR June Building Division Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) July, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

2021-10-18 PEC SR July Building Division Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:24 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 (3 hours, 33 minutes)

They see the court, you’ll see it right there. Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to the 15th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. 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 disability@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC@london.ca. So welcome everyone, moving along to number one, disclosures of a CUNY interest.

I see none. Are we all present? I see Councillor Hillier is the mayor present as well. Okay, thank you.

Moving on to consent items. We do have the presentation on 2.5. So I will be pulling that one. And I do have a quick question on 2.6.

So I might as well pull that from the consent item. Is there any other consent items to be pulled from committee members? I see none. So I am looking for a motion to move all items except 2.5 and 2.6.

I see a motion in Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m wondering if for the sake of efficiency, if we might want to include, ‘cause I would be happy to include in that motion, 5.1 and 5.2, which is the Building Division Monthly Reports, if that’s in order, and we can deal with it was all at the same time.

I think that’s in order. I was gonna just add it after the consent items, but I think we’ll proceed that way. We’ll do the consent items, and then we’ll bring the items at the end, bringing them forward. Thank you for bringing that to my attention though.

So with that, the consent items are moved in second, any comments from committee members? And so if we can vote. Can you get a mic to work now? Using the vote, the motion carries, 4 to 0.

Thank you. So moving on, we’ll bring up the items, the 5.1 and 5.2, which are the Building Division Reports from June and July. So we’ll bring them forward. And if I can have a mover, Councillor Lewis, and a seconder, Councillor Lehman, any comments from the committee?

I see our mayor is just going just as well. Welcome there. Thank you. Glad to be here.

I see no comments on the Building Division Reports from anyone from the chair of the committee members will just allow me. I just wanna make a note that I think the Building Division has been very, very busy throughout those months. We’ve had increases of 49% on permits issued as opposed to last year in June and 35% in July. So I wanna thank the staff for all the work that they’re doing to make these permits issued.

And since it’s a really busy time, I think I just wanna encourage them to keep up the great work. So with that, I have a motion and a seconder if we can vote. Before we move on, we have two items that have been pulled from the consent items. And I would like to go to staff, a presentation on the first one, which is the 2.5 Environmental Management Guidelines update.

You can go to staff. Good afternoon, Chair Hopkins, members of PEC, staff and members of the public. Through you, Chair Hopkins, this is Emily Williamson, a college’s planner in planning and development for item 2.5, found on page 20 of the agenda package. Presentation slides are found beginning on page 242 of the added agenda.

This is a request to circulate the Environmental Management Guidelines update for public review and comment. The revised Environmental Management Guidelines are founded on pages 43 through 190 of the package. Slide two on page 243 notes the highlights of the previous engagement during the pre-consultation. Phase one and phase two project stages.

Funny meetings have been held with external resource groups and First Nation communities to date. Although the original intent was to recommend the guidelines to council at this stage of the process, given the extent of the changes, we have brought this forward for further discussion to clarify items with groups prior to a future public participation meeting. In summary, staff have updated the guidelines from the draft circulated at the October 5th, 2020 Planning and Environment Committee meeting based on input from the external resource groups, First Nations communities and incorporating the April 15th local planning appeal tribunal approval of the London Planning, London Plan Environmental Policies. The proposed guidelines are consistent with the provincial policy statement, the natural heritage reference manual on the London Plan.

Changes to the 2020 Environmental Management Guidelines draft focused on reducing redundancy, improving clarity, aligning the guidelines with approved London Plan policy and incorporating comments were appropriate. Implications of these changes were particularly prominent in section five, buffer determination, where minimum buffer distances were reduced in some instances to account for greater policy flexibility and in section six, ecological compensation, where a new compensation framework outlined and outlined including an upcoming cash and lieu appendix. Slides four and five on pages 245 and 246, note policies 1334, 1342B and 1343, which are the drivers for many of these changes. Given the extent of the guidelines revisions and the length of the document, staff are extending a one month review period to external groups and providing an opportunity for an additional meeting per group to discuss and where possible resolve any outstanding questions or concerns.

Comments and final meetings are to occur prior to November 26th. A planning and environment committee meeting public participation meeting including a presentation and a bylaw recommendation to adopt the guidelines will occur at a future date. Thank you. This concludes my short presentation and staff are available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Williamson. Any questions from the committee? Councillor Layman.

Through you, Madam Chair, to staff, will this be then incorporated officially into the London Plan once the whole process is completed and passed by council? Ms. Williamson. Yes, that’s correct, Councillor Layman.

It will be incorporated in London Plan. However, aspects of the environmental management guidelines are already incorporated in the London Plan. So they will be, this new version will be adopted through bylaw. Thank you.

Is there anyone else on the committee that has any questions? The committee around me, I just as a follow up to Councillor Layman’s question. So it will be coming to us in a bylaw. I know right now we are going to be circulating this information.

When can we expect this to come back to us to staff? Through the chair, at this point we would, we are targeting before the end of the year. However, we have not committed to that date at this point to allow for any additional revisions that might be needed and should any major issues be raised by the external resource groups. Thank you for that.

What’s that? I’m looking for any further comments. I see none looking for a mover or Councillor Layman. Go ahead, please.

Sorry, Chair, just again with process, would this be a handle as an amendment to the London Plan? I know you mentioned it would be a bylaw. This might be a question for the city of Clerk as it is kind of dealing more with process, Chair. It’s Kevin Edwards.

So within the London Plan, the emergency or the environmental management guidelines are already identified as a guideline document. So there wouldn’t be any required change to the official plan. However, I would say that there is a process for how you manage changes to guideline documents. So you have to consult, you have to go through a public meeting process and they have to be adopted by bylaw.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layman. And so we can expect this coming back to us later on. And with that, I’m looking for a motion, Councillor Layman and a seconder in Councillor Lewis.

And with that, we can vote. Chair, I’ll vote yes. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, moving along to 2.6. I did pull this one as housekeeping amendments to the secondary plan. I wonder if staff has just a quick presentation but why are we doing this? And if they can just add a little bit more information on swap, I see swap is in there and maybe further work needs to be done and reasons why if staff can make a few quick comments.

Hello, Madam Chair. This is Justin Adema, Manager of Planning Policy. So the purpose of the amendment is to update all of the secondary plans specifically to ensure that references included to the official plan are made to the London plan rather than the previous 1989 official plan. So this is part of the transition moving from the 1989 plan to the London plan, which is now mostly in effect.

So at this time, we feel it’s appropriate to bring forward this amendment. Keep in mind this is just an information report to propose the types of changes that we’re looking at, but an actual amendment will be brought to a future meeting to include a full public participation meeting. The nature of the changes are, as I mentioned, primarily to update references from the ‘89 official plan to the London plan, but then also while we’re at it to include some corrections and formatting type of changes including numbering and those sorts of things within the secondary plans to make sure they’re all up to date. With regard to the Southwest area secondary plan, there are proposed housekeeping changes, but the purpose of housekeeping is not to significantly change the effect of the policies.

So we’re not changing in any major way, the types of development that may be permitted within any of these plans, which is why we’re calling them a housekeeping amendment. However, through the review and going through the Southwest area secondary plan, we’ve identified that there may be some inconsistencies or some updates to the planning approach that have been made through the London plan. And so a broader review of that plan could be appropriate, which would not fall under the umbrella of housekeeping. So we propose or recommend that that would be done through a separate amendment process.

It’s included in the report at this time, really just to identify the potential issue, but when the report comes back, that includes amendments to the secondary plans that are of a housekeeping nature will also include a recommendation for whether that broader review of the Southwest area secondary plan should be initiated. Thank you, Mr. Adam, for that information. I think it’s important to note that we’re just doing the housekeeping right now and not really changing our policies.

And I’m glad to hear that this will be coming back to us with the public participation as well. So thank you for those comments. And I’ll look to the committee for any questions that they may have. I see none, so I will look to the committee for a mover and a seconder.

Councillor Lewis is moving. And how about if we go to Councillor Hill here for a seconding? And if we can go to the screen to vote. Chair, I’m going to vote, but I know that I just want to note that as part of the consent agenda, I didn’t think based on the comments and content that they were voted on separately because of differential views.

And I’m just wondering if the future as we go forward, I always thought consent, if we were going to pull it, it’s because we can always ask questions and receive presentations. And it strikes me as odd that we would pull it just to discuss it when we can do that with all those items regardless. So I just leave that for your thoughts. Thank you.

And I hope I did vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Along to our scheduled items, and we have another scheduled item. So I’d like to first go to 3.1, which is a public participation meeting for 415 Oxford Street West.

And this is a recommendation and we’re adding new policy to permit building heights. And I am looking to the committee for a mover to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by the mayor, if we can go to our screens and vote. I vote yes, sir.

Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Madam Chair. Yes.

It’s far west like power. Sorry to interrupt. Just before we get too far into the public participation meeting, I understand I believe it’s the applicant I have in the waiting room who hadn’t pre-registered, but I believe has been sent by staff the link. So with your consent, I’ll let him into the meeting before you get started.

Yes. So do you want us to wait until he’s in? Yeah, it’ll just take a moment for him to join. Thank you.

You can just let him know or let us know when he is in. Thank you. So if I opened up the public participation meeting, I am going to go to staff for a presentation. Jasmine Hall is the planner on file.

Jasmine here to do the presentation, which is up to five minutes. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Good afternoon, members of the committee. This is Jasmine from Planning and Economic Development.

Administration does not have a formal presentation for this item. However, if you would like to follow along, figure two of the report, which is on page 400 of the agenda package, is a helpful image for this application. The application before you is a site-specific amendment to the London Plan at 415 Oxford Street West. There is no formal development proposed at this time.

The site is approximately 9.62 acres in size, with 190 meters of frontage along Oxford Street, where it is classified as a rapid transit boulevard. The frontage of this site is in the green space place type with a depth of 66 meters from Oxford Street. The subject parcel is surrounded by rapid transit border place types to the south and the west, to the north is neighborhood’s place type with a specific area policy to permit additional heights. The location of the site and the green space place type of the southern portion of the parcel creates a unique situation that meets the requirements in the London Plan for a specific area policy on the neighborhood portion of the subject site.

This permits residential development within 150 meters from Oxford Street, with a maximum building height of eight stories, 12 stories with bonus seen. Beyond 150 meters, the maximum residential building height would be four stories. Civic administration recommends approval as it complies with the provincial policy statement, the 1989 official plan, and the enforced policies of the London Plan. This concludes administration’s presentation for this item.

Thank you, Ms. Hall. I’d like to go to the applicant now. If you could come forward with your name.

Madam Chair, it’s Matt Campbell from Zelen Capriamo with you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. Please proceed.

You have up to five minutes. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We certainly won’t need that time today.

We’re certainly supportive of the staff recommendation for approval. We’re satisfied with the amendment that’s being brought forward by staff. There was a little bit of back and forth to address a couple of specific items policy-wise with this, but we’re at a place where we’re certainly confident in moving forward with this. The history on this matter is a little convoluted, but suffice to say that I agree with Ms.

Hall’s interpretation of the site that it warrants a site-specific policy change. And this is going to assist the city in meeting all of the objectives and goals that we find in the London Plan for locations along higher-order streets, in particular rapid transit corridors, like we have before us today. We think that this is going to be an excellent addition to the Oxford Street West streetscape. And I do just want to take a moment and call attention to there was a piece of correspondence that was received and is on today’s agenda.

Just for clarity, the area that is referenced in with that piece of correspondence is actually on the other side of Oxford Street West. That’s in reference to the mud creek works. And for clarity, the area that is proposed to be redesignated through this amendment is entirely outside of any flood constraint or flood hazard based on the best available data that we have today and is determined through the mud creek environmental assessment. So if there’s any questions on that, I’d be happy to answer that.

And if there’s any questions on the application, happy to answer those as well. And thank you for being able to speak in the committee. It’s afternoon, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Campbell. Are there any technical questions of staff or the applicant from committee members? I see none. So I will go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application.

Please come forward to the microphone. I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone else here that would like to speak from the public on this application, please come forward. I see none, so I am looking to close the public participation meeting motion from the mayor and seconded by Councillor Layman.

Go to the screens and vote and close. Chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’m looking for a motion for the application at 415 Oxford Street West.

May comments from the committee. Councillor Layman. Through you, Madam Chair, to staff. We are changing, when we’re reading, changing the heights of development to eight stories.

What was the previous height restriction? Through you, Madam Chair, it’s Mike Corby here. So the previous heights would have been restricted to the neighborhood place types on a local street, which is generally three and a half stories at this location. Councillor Layman.

Thank you. And the second question I have is this. It might sound right down because it’s been mentioned a few times. Site specific, are we looking at changing the heights along Oxford Street just in this one particular location?

Or is this, would this be changing heights along Oxford West? Through you, Madam Chair, Mike Corby again. So this is specific just to this site. It’s in keeping with the policy context on either side of this property to the east or the west in terms of the rapid transit permissions for height.

So it’s just kind of aligning the front of this property with the permissions on either side. Thank you, Mr. Corby. Councillor Lewis.

Sorry, I thought you had your hand up. I did, Madam Chair. I just, we don’t have an actual motion on the floor. So what I’d like to do is move the staff recommendation.

See if there’s a seconder for that and then we can proceed. Happy to second. So let’s move by Councillor Lewis and second by the chair or sorry, by the mayor. And are there any further comments?

Right. It does. Councillor Lehman. I know this is in your ward.

Thank you. Actually, just before you get to my ward, my ward starts at Wonderland, but as a name, I’m close enough. I’m familiar with obviously the Mud Creek project because it does impact my ward. I know this area, I had always assumed it was floodplain, but what I’m hearing from staff is, or from the applicant that it is not floodplain.

I’d like staff to comment on that comment whether it is included in the prior floodplain or what floodplain has to do with it and how the Mud Creek project has impacted this area. Just to give residents comfort, knowing that we’re looking at this very seriously, because that section of Oxford and heavy rains, obviously is a very serious source of concern. Yes, indeed. Would you like to go to staff for that?

Yes, please Madam Chair. Thank you. So if I can go to Mr. Corbe again.

A few Madam Chair, it’s Greg Barrett speaking. I’ll take this one. Probably just have a little bit more history on it. The, there is an additional policy that applies to these lands that in fact says that none of these works can be undertaken and no development can occur until all of the works that are associated with the Mud Creek EA are in place.

These lands on the north side of Oxford Street were captured through the London Plan and implement the approved environmental assessment for the whole Mud Creek area. So there are going to be additional works that are done upstream beyond what’s being done now that are going to, that will change the flood lines. So everybody is right in this instance. At this time, these lands are constrained and are within the regulatory flood limit.

However, the area that has been identified for the development as was noted by Mr. Campbell will after the completion of the works not be within the regulatory flood. This policy was brought in through the London Plan with the concurrence of the upper Thames because we’ve got, as I said, very explicit policies that say not withstanding these types of actions, no development in fact can occur until such time as the works have all been constructed and the flood lines have actually been amended to reflect these new development limits. So what’s in front of you this evening reflects what those development limits are and what those development limits will be and are consistent with the approved EA.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, that clears some things up.

So what I’m hearing is is that the Mud Creek project has essentially freed up lands to provide opportunities for increased housing. Is that correct to the staff through chair? Mr. Barrett.

What these works have done is that, yes, they have removed the flood constraint through these works. The large areas that currently flood will no longer flood once the works are done, which would open the lands up for additional development. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, terrible.

Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments from the committee? I’d say none. So if we could go to all screens to vote, there is a motion.

Sure, I’ll support this, yes. Motion to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to our next meeting is three point, let me see where are we, three point two. And this is a public participation meeting for one commissioner’s road.

And I’m looking for a mover to open up the public participation and a seconder. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hellier. We can open up the public participation meeting. Terrible, yes.

Thank you. I know you’re getting there. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And with that, I would like to go to staff first for a brief presentation.

Elena Riley is the planner, Elena. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I’m just gonna do a quick presentation. The application is for one commissioner’s road east.

The subject site is located on the south side of commissioner’s road on the southeast corner of Warren Cliff and commissioners. Currently, there is a one-story office building there. The site is approximately 0.71 hectares in size, just moving on to slide number three with the proposal. There was a request for a zoning by-law amendment to allow two eight-story mixed use buildings with a total of 157 residential units and 826 square meters of commercial space.

Special provisions were also sought for identifying commissioner’s road as the frontage with some interior and rear setbacks and a reduction in parking. The city also initiated an official plan amendment to add a specific area policy for chapter 10 to permit the maximum density of 233 units per hectare to align with the 1989 official plan policies. Moving to slide four, it just shows a rendering, looking southeast from commissioner’s road east. Slide five is a rendering from looking from southeast to commissioner’s road.

And I just want to touch on the bonusing. Through this application, there was a bonusing proposed for the additional density. And so I’d just like to quickly go over that a summary, including the exceptional building design. The underground parking and affordable housing was noted in the report.

And I’ll just touch quickly on these, the exceptional building design. It includes a height element at the corner of commissioner’s road and Warren Cliff at the corner, along with providing a well-defined built edge at the street level for both commissioner’s road and Warren Cliff. It includes a well-defined principal entrance to the commercial and residential units. A variety of building materials, articulation of the massing of the buildings, purpose-designed amenity on top of the roof of the structure to where the covered parking entrance is.

They’ve also included underground parking in this development and as mentioned, the provision of affordable housing, which includes seven affordable housing units, which include four one bedroom units and three two bedroom, all within the first eight story mixed use building. And then just quickly, staff are recommending this application. It is consistent with the provincial policy statement. It isn’t consistent with the enforced policies of the London plan, but not limited to the urban corridor place type.

It facilitates the development of an underutilized property moving to slide eight. The proposal for this mixed use development is consistent with the plan function of the urban corridor place type. The amendment meets the criteria for specific area policies in the ‘89 plan. It facilitates the development of affordable housing units as mentioned.

And so therefore, staff are recommending these amendments. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bradley.

Any technical questions from the committee? I see none. Oh, I do. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Staff, did I read that through here that there was some concerns about methane gas on this property? And if my understanding of that is correct, how is that intended to be dealt with? Ms. Riley.

Sorry. The solid waste division did reply to that. And they just made the applicant aware of that there is methane gas. And then through the site plan control, site plan approval process, or the building approval process, they will have to deal with it at that time.

So that doesn’t cause, from a technical, from your perspective, your recommendation that does not cause staff any concerns. Through you, Madam Chair, not during this process. ‘Cause it was brought to wastewater division and they didn’t post forward any major concerns at that time. They just wanted to make the applicant aware.

Yeah, thank you very much. I appreciate that is. Any concerns from a traffic study? And I’m asking this from a technical review of the site.

I think I know the site fairly well in so far as it was, it’s currently an insurance building amongst other property tenants on that site. But I know some of the questions that were raised, talk in terms of traffic, as a result of this, what’s the impact on traffic as a result of this, of your recommendation of this proceeding? Ms. Riley, would you be able to answer that question on traffic?

Through you, Madam Chair. Transportation division didn’t post any objections on this. However, I will defer to, I believe there is a member of transportation here, ‘cause this was a concern brought forward. And if not, another member of staff is willing to answer it.

Thank you, just wait a moment, see if we can get someone to respond. Hi, Madam Chair, it’s Garfield Dales from the Transportation Division. Happy to respond. So yes, certainly as this proposal moves forward in terms of access design, that will be something we will be looking at as part of the site plan process.

This is a busy area and we will be consistent with our access management guidelines looking at the proper treatment in terms of the entrance locations and design. So through you, Chair, to Mr. Dales, then if I can ask, because I’m trying to understand this, I guess based on the current situation, which has obviously much less density in its current form, when we gross that up significantly with the recommendation that’s here, which by the way, the building looks great. And I think in an underutilized corner of prime space that it’s significant, but I am exceptionally concerned about the issues around traffic cut throughs to businesses nearby.

And that’s been cited, I think, in their concerns that may come up again. And also cut through concerns on Highland Ave and so on. I’m just trying to get it, I mean, site plan could fix a lot of sins, it would appear, but this is a very busy corner as it is. And I’m mindful how we plan to accommodate as best we can, the commercial and residential tenants in the area or residents in the area, as well as trying to balance out the increased traffic.

And you’ll note that there was one parking space per per tenant, so they certainly anticipate cars being a key part of this. So I’m just wondering how we’ve allowed for that, knowing the corner is as busy as it is. Mr. Dales, I think the question is around for providing other forms of transit transportation to accommodate the intensity of this application.

I don’t know if you can answer that or if I can go back to… Yes, three, Madam Chair, I can tackle maybe one part of that and then maybe my colleagues in planning around transit supportive type development. But yes, certainly, as the mayor has noted, this is an important intersection, a busy intersection. So we will be looking at consistent with our access management guidelines, the manner in which entrance locations are provided.

And that will include looking at the traffic generated by the site, the existing entrance location, Highland Avenue, which currently is a full access at this time. I also believe as part of the proposal, there is discussions or requirements related to adjacent property and an access arrangement as well. So those will be details that we will be looking at as part of the site plan. In terms of overall, in terms of traffic generated by the site or trips generated by the site, we would be looking at a certain percentage of that activity to be accommodated through transit and through other means active transportation to help to reduce some of the traffic volume in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Dales, do mayor? Yeah, I think those are my questions for now. I appreciate the responses from staff, just to help me do with the issue.

I didn’t hear how our transit planning was going to accommodate in part, but I don’t think this is a transit play quite frankly, not understanding the major intersection that it is. I think this is clearly an automobile play, but primarily based on the parking spaces per resident. But having said it, I’ll reserve to ask more questions, but I appreciate staff’s response so far. Thank you, and just as a reminder to everyone, this is just a technical question from staff.

Councillor Hillier, I see your hands up. Thank you very much. Yes, to continue upon the mayor’s questions, he actually asked most of mine, mine is directly related to the southeast corner of the site. I am quite familiar with the back, the easement and behind these buildings we’re accessing car dealerships and they use Highland quite a lot.

And I’m very concerned about the southeast corner and the in and out of going into this new development and how much traffic’s actually coming. If you do an overlay and showing where the easement is, you’re accessing three different businesses in an apartment building. And I’m very concerned about the southeast corner. Is anything being done to address that corner?

‘Cause I myself know that’s a blind corner coming around. So this is the southeast corner of Commissioner and Warren Cliff. No, no, the southeast corner of the development. Of the development.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hillier. If I could go to Australia. Through you, Madam Chair, I believe that it is not, I believe this is a question for if transportation, if Mr.

Garfield could respond to that. I just wanna make note that during this planning process, transportation did not have any major concerns with moving forward with the zoning bylaw amendments. And they pushed that during the site plan approval process, the further issues would be dealt with. But I can relate to Mr.

Garfield if he has any more information for you. Thank you, I’d like to go ahead. Sorry, Madam Chair. Through you, just to respond to the questions.

So certainly we will look at the site lines and operation associated with that entrance location. That would be part of the site plan process that we’d be looking further at sort of the design details related to that location. Well, thank you. The reason being is ‘cause I look at slide three of the staff presentation.

It’s going in red coming off Commissioner’s Road. Yes, you can turn her right off Commissioner’s, but if you’re leaving the property, you cannot turn left because of the median. So you have to use the Highland entrance, which means I predict a majority of the residents of this complex will be using that entrance. That’s my only concern.

Thank you, Councillor. So we’re right now on technical questions. Any further technical questions from anyone else of staff? Before we move on, maybe I can stay with staff.

And as you can see committee members, we have a number of revised recommendations for bylaw. If I can go to Ms. Riley if she could outline the amendments that are before us as well, since we’re never on technical questions, Ms. Riley?

Sorry, through you, Madam Chair. I’m just bringing up those amendments. Thank you. Sorry, I’m just bringing up those amendments, I apologize.

The one amendment was to add the tenant agreements with regards to the affordable housing. And that is in the recommendation and the bylaw. And then I’m just bringing up the other revised ones so I can relay the message appropriately. And the other was, sorry, it’s just coming up on my screen.

With regards to the rear yard setback, through the discussions with our site plan approval staff, the rear portion of the building on building one is not completely below grade. Therefore, it’s treated as a first story. So we had to amend the bylaw to give that a one meter setback. However, anything above this fourth story, which is the full stories of the buildings, will be providing a four meter setback.

And those are the amendments. They are in the recommendation and the bylaw. So that’s the two and only amendments that we’re changing. Thank you very much for that.

So moving on, I’d like to go through the applicant. If you can come forward with your name, please. Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes, I can.

Excellent. My name is Ben McCauley, a planner from Zalinka Pream will limit it. And we’re representing the applicants. I’d first like to thank the Abutting Property Owners, Northway Properties, Lardland Property Management and Auto Point Group for their written submissions.

And to acknowledge that we have reviewed and understood their comments around access arrangements, particularly as it relates to the private lane way on the east side of the site. And we are committed to working with these landowners to ensure that any updated joint use maintenance agreements or any other necessary agreements are put in place through the subsequent site plan approval process. Otherwise, I’ve reviewed staff’s report and recommendations and we are agreeable. So thank you for your time and I’m here to answer any other questions if necessary.

Thank you, Mr. McCauley. Is there any technical questions from committee members? Yes, Mr.

Mayor. Yeah, thanks very much. I was glad to hear the comments about the interaction with the area commercial property holders in that area as well. And it’s important to hear that that undertaking will take place.

It’s like site plan, but I think this goes a little deeper. And I think in my experience, maybe just being old, but being a better neighbor for all the reasons that it makes sense by doing things right the first time goes a long way. So I applaud the applicant for doing this. And that gives some comfort to the area commercial folks and I would say frankly to the residential attendance area to make sure that extends to that.

Thank you. I’ll now move on to the public. There’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this application. Please come forward, go to ask one more time.

If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this application, please come forward. Just one moment. John McDougall, please. As for McDougall.

I have no questions at this time. Okay. So there’s no one from the public then. Thank you.

And I’ll ask one more time. There’s anyone else from the public that would like to speak. They none. I will go to committee members for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Lewis, second by Councillor Lehman. We can please vote. Sure, I’ll vote yes. Thank you.

I was in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And with that, I am looking for a motion to put the recommendation as amended.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. And it’s seconded by Councillor Lehman. Comments from the committee? Or I see visiting Councillors.

Any committee members that would like to make comments? I will go to Councillor Colosa. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, for recognizing me and staying part of my evening together.

This application is in Word 12, and I think committee members for their questions, they covered off most of my questions already. Just I had one resident who was supposed to get the PPM, but hasn’t made it. Their question, just to verify with staff, is there any sanitary capacity concerns recognizing there’s already development? In this area, higher density development and potentially even more future development, is there any sanitary concerns?

Thank you, Councillor Colosa. With that, I will go back to staff regarding the sanitary capacity for this development. Yes, through you, Madam Chair. It’s my love of shadow development services.

I know we don’t have any capacity concern here. And we had a lot of discussion and investigation about the capacity of this year. They need to extend on commissioners, but no capacity concern at all. Councillor Colosa.

Thank you for that verification. And just I assume pedestrian safety and sidewalk access will all be managed during site plan, recognizing it’s a shared driveway and there is active transportation in that area. If we can get confirmation from staff. Thank you, Madam Chair, my core be here.

So the access or the public access is on the abutting lands. Obviously through site plan approval, they’ll make all efforts to maintain that sidewalk that’s on the external property. And there’ll be an existing easement agreement in place for that to be maintained. We can also look at prohibiting access through that portion of the easterly side to protect that pedestrian access through site plan approval.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes my questions for this portion of the application. Thank you for your questions, Councillor Colosa. And with that, I’d like us to go to screens, no further comments from committee if we can vote.

Chair, I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So moving on to our next public participation meeting, which is on 14 Gideon Drive and two, two zero, one two Oxford Street West. I, this is for a application for a 36 single detached residential lots, a medium size building, medium density open space block and two new streets, as well as a woodland compensation.

And I would like to go to the committee to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman seconded by Councillor, or help out the mayor. And with that, we’ll open up the public participation meeting. I vote yes to that, Chair.

Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And I would like to go to staff. I’m not Mr.

Page that will be doing a presentation. Hello, Madam Chair. It’s Matt and Albert speaking. Mr.

McSula couldn’t attend today, but we have a new staff member who started with us in June who agreed to do the presentation on his behalf. So Alison Curtis will do the presentation for you folks and the public. And then either myself or Mr. Page can help answer any questions after she’s done.

Thank you, Mr. Salberg, and welcome Alison Curtis. If you could start your presentation, you have up to five minutes. Thank you, through you, Chair Hopkins.

This is Alison Curtis on behalf of planning and development for item 3.3, which can be found on page 481 of the agenda package. This application includes a proposed draft plan, a subdivision, an official plan amendment, and zoning by-law amendments for 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street West. The subject lands are located south of Gideon Drive in Oxford Street and west of West Elborn and surrounded by a mix of agricultural, residential, and open-space land uses. The draft plan, a subdivision, proposes a mix of single detached and low to mid-rise dwellings for a total of 129 new residential units.

This would include 36 single detached dwellings and a multi-family block, which would include two apartment buildings, containing approximately 72 units and 21 townhouse units. Two new local streets identified as street A and B on the draft plan have been proposed, as well as a pedestrian walkway at the eastern extent of the draft plan to enhance pedestrian connection between street B and Oxford Street West. The subject lands are currently designated neighborhoods and green space, place types under the London plan, and low density residential, agricultural, and environmental review under the 1989 official plan. The special policies within the river bend area plan also apply to the subject lands, and they are currently zoned urban reserve, UR1, agricultural AG1, and environmental review.

The applicant is seeking official plan and zoning by-law amendments to facilitate their proposed development, and these will be reviewed later in the presentation. Comments and concerns were received from the community regarding the application. Some of these include increased traffic and speed, rear yard privacy, compatibility of the proposal and its density with the neighborhood, potential for increased noise and air pollution, the loss of agricultural lands, natural woodlands, and wildlife habitat, and the impacts on drainage patterns and the potential for flooding on neighboring properties. As per the report, there are conditions for draft plan approval included regarding aspects of this application, including ecological, hydrological, and site plan that will help to mitigate or address these issues.

Environmental reports and studies were prepared and reviewed by the city and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and staff are satisfied that they can be finalized as part of the design study stage in accordance with the conditions of draft plan approval. It is noted that two compensation areas are required to account for the removal of woodlands as part of the proposed development, and the loss of fallow agricultural fields that potentially contain significant wildlife habitat. I will direct you to the figure on slide 10, which demonstrates the proposed compensation plan. You can see the compensation area for the removed woodland highlighted in green and the conceptual additional habitat in blue.

Staff are recommending that the compensation lands and a portion of the existing natural heritage lands be zoned open space OS5, as well as the inclusion of a 30 meter buffer along the eastern edge of the natural feature to ensure the longevity and protection of the compensation lands. The applicant has requested an official plan amendment for blocks 37, which is the proposed multifamily block to change it from low density residential to multifamily medium density residential. They have also requested zoning bylaw amendments for this block that would permit the two low rise apartment buildings and the proposed townhouse units. You can refer to slide 12 for the conceptual design for this block, and this small scale low rise development is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing adjacent low density residential and multifamily developments located to the north.

With regards to zoning for the site overall, you can refer to slide 13 for the zoning excerpt, and staff are recommending the holding residential are one zone for the single detached lots one to 36, holding residential are six special provision and are eight special provision for block 37, open space OS1 for block 39, which is proposed as a park or an entry feature, an open space OS5 for a portion of the natural feature and compensation lands. The draft plan, a subdivision official plan and zoning bylaw amendments are appropriate and consistent with the provincial policy statement, as well as being in keeping with the 1989 official plan, the London plan and the Riverbend area plan. As such, staff’s recommendation is as followed that on the recommendation of the director of planning development with respect to the application relating to the properties at 14 Gideon Drive and 2012 Oxford Street, the proposed draft plan of subdivision be recommended to the approval authority for draft approval as red line revised and subject to the conditions appended to the staff report and that the proposed official plan amendment attached in appendix A and the proposed zoning bylaw amendments attached in appendix B, be introduced at the municipal council meeting on October 26th, 2021. This concludes staff’s presentation and staff are available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. Curtis. Any technical questions or staff?

I see none. I do have one technical question. If the committee will allow me to ask that question for my chair. Ms.

Curtis, I notice there’s a number of holding provisions. I know you went through them. Could you just be a little bit more, I guess specific to the holding provision H-65, what it stands for? Yes, Madam Chair, through you.

Just give me a second. I’ll open up that section of the zoning bylaw. Or if Bruce Page would be able to answer that question as well. Madam Chair, if you could just give us a moment, we’ll come back to that one, if that’s okay.

Yes, that will be fine. I will go to the applicant. If the applicant is here, where the applicant’s consultant, if you can come forward to the microphone, please state your name and address, and you have five minutes. Welcome.

Hi, thank you for having me. My name is Amelia Sloan, and I’m with Stand Tech Consulting, here on behalf of the client for that applicant tonight. I just wanted to take a minute to thank staff for working through this application process with us. We’re supportive of the recommendations that have come forward from staff, in particular the holding zones, and the draft conditions of subdivision.

I think these things will work to alleviate some of the concerns of the public, and I’m here to answer any questions that the committee or the public might have. Thank you. Are there any technical questions of the applicant? I see none.

Thank you. I’d like to go now to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments on the recommendation, please come forward, stating your name and address, and you have up to five minutes. Hi, thank you for your time and consideration.

My name is Andy. I live at 44 Indian Drive, property line, approximately 65 feet away from the planned development. Just wanted to take the time to let you know some of my concerns. I’ve lived here with my family for approximately 24 years, neighbors.

We’ve enjoyed a long, quiet country lifestyle, all on tight of wells near a common water table. Several concerns about the development, but against the development, my concerns need to be addressed. We’re concerned about our well water, quality of the water, potential for runoff, pesticides, lawn treatments, and part of the lot runoff. We’re concerned about the water table itself going down.

Another concern of ours, just the intrusion of privacy, disposal of medium density, housing to apartment buildings looking down on us. No natural buffer of the length of the property, no proposal for any kind of privacy, fence or privacy wall that might help, you know, solve from the blow to us during this buying country lifestyle. We’re also concerned about the traffic in our cars, potentially, you know, over 100 cars, visiting in and out in front of our driveways. These are all concerns of ours, and I just want to take this time to voice concerns with you.

Thank you, Andy. We’ll address, I’ll have staff address your questions after the public participation meeting has ended. So if you could just stay tuned. Yes, please come forward with your name and address, and you have up to five minutes.

Welcome. Welcome, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairperson, the Councillors, the members of the public, the mayor. So I’m speaking on behalf of people that live on getting in drive, my name is Jennifer, and I’m concerned about the fact that it’s being proposed as a medium density.

There’s a lot of building going on. West All Born, off of West All Born, you have high density building there, you have lots of building in West Five, you have apartment buildings, you have houses, you have townhouses, not a lot of trees left, and all of the wildlife are scattering. And I thought this was the four cities, so I’m really concerned. In the plan, the linen plan that you speak of, through things such as part six as encourage and fill residential development in residential areas where existing land uses are not adversely affected.

If you put two apartment buildings, townhouses and 36 residential houses in that small amount of property, and the entrance and exit is off of Gideon Drive, there is going to be a lot of issues. Traffic is gonna be huge. Right now, if anybody was aware and lives in that area, one person hit a hole on Oxford Street, just passed Gideon about a week and a half ago and shut down that whole area. If you have all those people now living just off of Gideon, where are they gonna go?

If there’s an emergency, how many car accidents are gonna happen there? Constantly, there’s cars being flipped over and it’s not even built up to the standard in which is being proposed right now. Even if you eventually widen the road, expropriate people’s property on Gideon and make it around about, you’re still gonna have a lot of issues. You’re gonna have issues of traffic and noise and people needing emergency help.

And there’s one entrance and one exit currently off of Gideon to that residential area, the medium density residential area that’s being proposed. In the London Plan, it talks about how you have to look at the whole area and try to be measured in allowing development and allowing this development to go beside individual residences that have been living off of wells, I think would be a big mistake of the cities. I really do. I think there’s a lot of building that’s occurring there and there’s not much thought as to where the animals, about the water table, the high traffic that you’re gonna be having there, what you’re gonna do with emergency situations, I mean, where’s the new police station?

Where’s the new fire station? All those things need to be considered. There’s no public transit that goes to that area. So you’re gonna be dealing with tons and tons of cars.

So for two apartment buildings that are now four levels high, townhouses and 36 residential houses, you’re gonna have how many cars? Over 200 and something cars, potentially more with service vehicles and friends that are attending those places. It’s gonna be coming out of Gideon. When I talked to the planner, he said, well, we’ll have to put in something else for emergency situations.

It’s an afterthought, but do we value green space here? Do we value older trees? Do we value animals? Because when the builder took over the place and those people that lived in that single family residence, but they now want to change into a medium density area of two apartment buildings, townhouses and 36 single residential lots, they started cutting the trees down.

Did they apply? Senator? Sorry, Senator, I just wanna let you know you have about 45 seconds left. Sure, that’s right.

And I guess you’d have to ask yourself this question. This is the kind of developer that you’re gonna be dealing with. Somebody who doesn’t apply to the city to take down trees. They just do it because they can’t.

It really should be something that is considered a buffer for noise in between existing single family home residences that have been there for years and years and years on wells. There should be a huge wall that’s being put in place to buffer the sound and the noise. There should be more measures made for safety and emergency vehicles. That is too many people in that area that’s being proposed.

And I don’t believe that it’s a great exit and a trance off of Gideon Drive, even if you make it a circle. It’s still not a good place. If you live in the area and you’re on those properties, you will see what I’m talking about. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make comments? Last one more time. If there’s anyone else, please come forward. If you’d like to make a comment to this application.

And just before I close the public participation meeting, I would like to go back to Mr. Felberg or Ms. Curtis for an answer to the technical question regarding the holding provision, H-65. Certainly Madam Chair.

So the H-65 is to ensure there are no land use conflicts between the adjacent arterial roads and the proposed residential uses as it pertains to noise vibration and things of that matter, which we would deal with through the engineering review and subsequent site plans. We would require noise studies to address that. Thank you. With that, I’d like to, as someone close, the public participation meeting.

Councillor Lewis, and Councillor Lehman. I will do it. Go to our screen. - I will do it.

Councillor Hillier. Yes, it hasn’t come up yet. It was in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

That I would like to go to committee members to motion up or not or to make any comments or if I may committee members, this is a application in my ward. And I would like to make a few comments. Maybe before I do that, I’ll probably go to staff to answer some of the concerns that we heard from the public. And Mr.

Felberg, if you’re able to or Ms. Curtis, I’ve noted down some of the concerns, which were around private wells, runoff, the water table, the privacy, the buffering, the fencing that is needed next to a neighbor. And of course, traffic was mentioned a number of times and concerns around the medium density that is going forward with this application and the lack of transit and of course, the concern of trees. But if staff can make comments or answer some of the public’s questions.

Certainly, Madam Chair. So first off, I think it’s important to recognize that these lands were considered within the River Bend community plan. And I believe that was approved back in 1999. And at that time, they were slated for this type of residential development.

As part of that plan, we would have considered the city and all the landowners would have considered the location of various community facilities. So like where fire would go, how the police would service this area? In addition, we would have considered the servicing requirements for infrastructure in the area. So a lot of that work has been planned out from an affordability perspective and a couple of the projects that you’ll see coming up in the near future, the roundabout at Gideon and Oxford, which is slated for 2024.

We’ve started the planning process for that. And then we have the Oxford Street widening a little bit further to the east starting at Westdale Borne. And that’s slated for 2025. So just as contacts that may help answer a few of the question as to the viability of the development at this particular location.

In addition, I wanted to answer the question about the wells or address that. So as part of our engineering review, we’ll be doing a hydrogeological study to assess the impact on groundwater for this area. And we would be looking specifically at any farm wells or any domestic wells in the area. And we’d be looking to ensure that there is no impact that and then carrying conditions forward in the subdivision agreement to protect for those uses.

With respect to the traffic. So Oxford Street is currently the classification of that street. It’s intended to move medium to high volumes of vehicular traffic and it does put a priority on pedestrian cycle and transit movements. So with the road widening in the future and with the roundabout, we think that we can address many of the traffic concerns that were raised by members of the public.

Just looking here, I think. Oh, with respect to the removal of the trees. So yes, the trees were removed back in, I believe it was 2017. And we did identify that through the ecological review.

So we did some apologies my sons having a ball in the background. We did address that in the SLSR and EIS. And through that, the compensation lands that you see to the south, the developers agreed to compensate through the south on an existing woodland and wetland. And we believe that that actually provides a net benefit to the natural heritage system.

And the applicant’s restoration plan will be included as part of our engineering review stage and as well as an environmental management plan to protect for those features into the future. I think that answers most of the questions from the public if I’ve missed something, let me know on myself, Mr. Page can assist. Thank you, Mr.

Felberg. I would like to go to the mayor. Thanks very much, Chair. One of the things I heard from a couple of the residents related to some potential form of buffer to separate and or to take care of some of the noise concerns, but also just natural protection between now this development and the broader community.

I wonder if there are any comments on that, please. Thank you, Mr. Felberg. I, we did hear that comment about the buffering.

I know there is a house into the west. It’s a heritage home as well. If there are any plans for buffering or fencing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I’m gonna pass this one off to Mr. Page. I think you might be able to answer that for us. Thank you, Mr.

Page. You through you, Madam Chair. The design of the subdivision provided we’re logging on to the property at 36 Gideon. There is no noise wall or anything proposed along that property line.

The design of the the lighting will provide some sort of buffering of noise from both Oxford Street and the density blocks planning on to Gideon Oxford on to that future roundabout. There is a there is a wood lot, a small wood lot that’s being located right at the frontage of the this development and it’ll offer a little bit of buffering but it’s not large enough to be park. It’s just gonna be maintained. It’s it’s just maintain its form and maintain that the trees there.

Parks planning did not want any or did not request any sort of parkland adjacent to this property or on this property where I guess you would consider if you were looking at a ecological buffer. There is no natural heritage feature on that side of the development. So there is a legal logical feature to buffer nor was there a desire to locate where you park down the the west side of the property. So chair, was there a thought then not through the staff to and maybe this is a site accommodation?

I’m not sure but some kind of fence or something to separate that property from a if there’s not a natural separation development to the neighbors. Thank you, Madam Chair. We haven’t proposed a fence yet. Typically if we do propose a fence, it would be the standard park fence, which is a black chain link for foot high chain link fence.

It would be located along there. I don’t believe or I’m not sure if the applicant has had discussions with the neighbors to provide a wooden fence along there but I haven’t heard that that was the case. Madam Chair, if I may, if you maybe to help the mayor page 486 of your agenda and it goes to the point that Mr. Page is making earlier, shows the draft subdivision plan.

So adjacent to the Gideon properties as Mr. Page noted where the street will come in, those it will be rear lauded with with single detached homes that would would back onto those folks. So we wouldn’t normally provide a buffer on a rear yard condition. So this would be the backyards of the new houses would be along that shared property line.

So then as Mr. Page indicated, any fencing requirements would be standard fencing requirements. It’s not the higher intensity development adjacent, excuse me to those existing homes. So Chair, I was trying to make a point and I appreciate that comment.

Thank you. Is there any willingness of the applicant to consider having a dialogue I hear about the chain link fence but something perhaps more private is that something they might consider undertaking in a discussion at least with the neighbors? Mr. Page.

Madam Chair, what we can do is we can take that back to the applicant and have a further conversation with that and address it through the detailed engineering drawings and identify some kind of fencing or some kind of protective feature on the south edge. So Chair, with that, I’m going to move to proposals recommended. And I’m looking for a seconder in Councillor Lewis. And if I can make a few comments, I will give up my seat as chair Councillor Lewis if you’re able to take over.

Happy to do that for you, Madam Chair. I’ll take the chair and recognize Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much. And I want to thank the public for coming out.

We did receive staff a number of concerns and you’ve heard them here tonight. And I just want to reiterate the challenges of development in this area. It is intense and it is going to continue. And the challenges of moving around is starting to become a great concern in the community.

I’ve heard it over and over again as each application comes forward. I know that this is a zoning application, not a site plan application, but the questions are always around, if we allow for this to go forward, what is going to happen in the future. I understand that there is an EA process at the moment going forward at this intersection at Gideon and Oxford. And there will be a public information session on November the 17th, five to seven.

I want to just verify that with staff. I hope there’s someone here. ‘Cause that’s really important as we develop and as we move around in this area, we need to improve the roads and how we move. So if I can reach out to staff if that is being confirmed because there’s a lot of interest in the community on this EA process that the public is able to make their comments too.

And also when we can expect the EA to be completed. So Mr. Barrett or another member of staff, if you could respond to Councilor Hopkins question there. Through the chair, it’s Garfield Dales for the Transportation Department.

So yes, I can confirm an environmental assessment study is underway for the intersection at Oxford and Gideon. We are planning, as was mentioned, a public information center in November. And I would expect in the spring that we would be looking to finalize that study and report back to council on the outcome. Thank you for that, Mr.

Dales. Councilor Hopkins. Thank you. I appreciate the mayor’s comments around the fencing and the buffering.

I am really pleased to hear staff and hopefully the applicant will be willing to speak or take that process through the site plan process, which is very important. One of the things when we do these infills, it changes the neighborhood and it’s always a challenge. I have one more question around the compensation plan. And it’s interesting how we receive reports we heard earlier on in our meeting today about compensation with our new policies going forward.

In particular, the environmental changes that we’re going to be looking at, in particular the ecological compensation. And I know we’re doing that in this development, but getting back to the new policies that we’re going to be putting in place, it does speak to the rare and exceptional cases. Is this a rare and exceptional case, or is it just going to be kombra routine when we see woodland compensation needed and in development, do we just naturally proceed in switching things around? If I can get a little bit more information from staff on that.

How we replace our features, I guess is something that we’re going to be looking at, but we’re doing it here tonight. And I’m not sure which staff person might want to jump in on that, but I’ll see if Mr. Felberg perhaps wants to start or if he wants to pass the ball to somebody else to answer on the woodland compensation piece. Through you, Chair, it’s Bruce Page.

The compensation piece or the news lens, I guess you may want to consider it somewhat of unique. The trees were removed prior to the application and we identified that when the application is that those trees had been removed and there was a requirement for compensation. We took the step with the willingness of the applicant to provide a compensation area that was on their land just south of this application, adjacent to an existing woodland and wetland. Then there was a second compensation piece that actually complexed a second woodlot and wetland so that the two natural heritage features are joined.

So in this instance, there is a net benefit. We joined two natural heritage features, both with wetlands and woodlands. They will be zoned open space by so the highest and most protected open space zone. And the land area was closely equivalent to what was lost.

So again, it’s somewhat unique in that the trees were brought down prior to the application, I hope this doesn’t happen in the future, but that was the case and we were able to provide for more than sufficient compensation. I guess I’d also say in addition to the land that’s provided, they’re going to do a reclamation plan. So there’ll be planting those two open space five areas with a restoration plan that’ll be prepared as part of the engineering review drugs. Thank you for that, Mr.

Page. Councilor Hopkins, does that answer your question? Yes, it does. I think it’s important information that we can share with the public ‘cause there was concerns when these trees came down a number of years ago.

And here we are today looking at approving a recommendation for development. I am going to be supporting this, but I am going to be adding a number of concerns to my support to this recommendation. It’s the plan to allow for this to go forward. It is in our Riverbend secondary plan process.

But when we read recommendations and we support developments like this, we also say it supports transit and pedestrian traffic. And there is none out here. And I am going to underline the importance of a need for not only transit out in the West End, but how we move around because you hear time and time again, the challenges of traffic and safety and how we move. Now it’s not a zoning application conversation, but it comes up time and time again as we change our neighborhoods.

My other concern here is the loss of agricultural land. This is within the urban growth boundary. Not sprawling, but this is where urban and rural clash. And it changes the areas that people have grown and have become accustomed to.

And I think we have to acknowledge that. So I will be supporting the application, but I would encourage the community to be part of that process as it goes through the site plan in terms of reaching out to staff and having those conversations with the buffering. And I would encourage this applicant to hold off until we complete this roundabout. If indeed we’re going to have a roundabout in this area through the EA process, because we do need to move around safely in this area.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. And we have no one else on the speakers list. So I will return the chair to you and just share that I think we’re probably ready to call the question.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I think there is a motion in front of us. Chair, I vote yes. Vote me, I make a brief comment, Chair.

Councillor Hill here. I voted yes, but it has gone through, I see. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Mr.

Mayor. Yes, thank you. I acknowledge Ms. Curtis for her first run at council, working with us on this.

She was thoughtful and articulate. And I just welcome her to the planning committee. I think she did it standingly well. The other folks were, okay, she was great, but they were pretty good too, thanks.

Thank you. Moving on to our next public participation meeting, 3.4, which is 584 Commissioners Road West. I’m looking for a mover to open up public participation meeting, Councillor Layman. And I have Councillor Hill here.

I’ll vote yes, Chair. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’d like to go to staff, Ms. Debert, who will be doing a brief presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Barb Debert of planning implementation. The application before you is for a zoning bylaw amendment, affecting lands on the south side of Commissioners Road West, just east of West Mount Crescent. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling and the construction of a 26-unit townhouse development at a maximum density of 60 units per hectare.

The proposed development includes a three and a half story, 12-unit stacked townhouse, aligned with Commissioners Road West, and a two-story 14-unit stacked townhouse aligned with the West property boundary. The development will be served by a surface parking lot with 43 parking spaces, having direct access from Commissioners Road, and the adjacent land uses are single detached dwellings. Members of the public were concerned about the intensity of the development, lighting, privacy and noise, tree and vegetation removal, and traffic impacts. It is the intent of the London plan to align more intense development along higher-order streets, such as civic boulevards, while generally limiting heights to a maximum of four stories to allow for compatibility with adjacent lower-intensity neighborhoods.

A moderately intense two to three and a half story townhouse development is in keeping with the official plan. The proposal generally meets all of the regulatory requirements of the requested zone with two exceptions. A reduced minimum front yard is requested and recommended to bring the building closer to the street consistent with contemporary urban design goals. In addition, there is a reduced West interior side yard to allow windows on the end unit of the building situated toward the front of the property.

These proposed windows are horizontally oriented and situated high on the wall of the building, providing for light into the building while not compromising privacy on the adjacent property. The applicant is also providing slightly more parking than is required by the zoning by-law. The site design situates the buildings as far away as possible from the rear and side yards of existing and proposed single-family dwellings, mitigating compatibility concerns such as privacy, noise and lighting. Both buildings are situated away from the rear and side yards.

And city staff have had additional discussions during the review process with the applicant with respect to the treatment of the intervening facilities to provide privacy for adjacent properties. As a result, an improved arrangement of the driveway, parking lot and landscaped open space areas will adequately accommodate privacy fencing, enhanced landscaping, and the preservation of a mature black maple tree along the East property line. Several other trees are also proposed to be preserved along the South and West property lines and will be supplemented by new perimeter landscaping. And these details will all be addressed at the site plan approval stage.

With respect to traffic impacts, transportation staff have indicated the impact of additional traffic volume from a 26-unit development on Commissioners Road West is negligible and not an impediment to consideration of the proposed development. The staff recommendation is for approval of an amendment to the zoning by-law from a residential R1 zone to a residential R5 special provision zone, those special provisions being put in place to permit the proposed 26-unit townhouse development. Staff is satisfied that the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, is in conformity with the enforced policies of both the London Plan and the 1989 Official Plan and is appropriate for the site. That is the end of my presentation.

Thank you, and staff are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any technical questions from the committee? I see a Councillor Van Neurberg in this here joining us.

Welcome, I’ll go to the mayor first, and then I’ll go to your Councillor. Thanks very much, and thank you to our staff for the explanation that was very succinct and clear. I noted that one of the deviations you noted was building the property closer to the road, and as we know, commissioners being a major thoroughfare. I’m concerned about the potential impact if widening becomes an issue there, and I’m wondering what the potential impacts would be, particularly if we bring the building closer to the street, limiting, I think, the potential to widen there as necessary in the future.

I wonder if I could get some comment on that, please. Through you, Madam Chair, it’s Barbara Gamm. I can address that question. The road widening has been taken into consideration in the draft site plan concept that we have.

So the reduction in the yard setbacks is to the ultimate road widening, not to the current front property line. So through you, Chair, when you say ultimate road riding, this is the staff, I’m not sure exactly what that means. That’s probably a planning term, but I’m just trying to wonder, it may have been taken into consideration, but in the longterm, if we were to widen commissioners in that particular areas, it extends East and West, what the potential implications would be by moving that building closer to the road. So we’re talking about future road widening then.

Yes, again, through you, Madam Chair, the development has been designed such that it would not interfere with any future road widening. The road widening is shown on the draft plan. This is very typical for most redevelopment of existing sites where road windings are required is when we receive site plans, they already show the road widening that will be required by the city at the site plan stage. So there really are no impacts that reduced setback from the road allowance is from the future road allowance, not the current road allowance.

Okay, that’s helpful. Thanks so much. Councillor Van Mereberg and welcome. Madam Chair, actually the mayor, touched on some of what I wanted to do.

This isn’t work and obviously at some point, the district is going to widen. My understanding is currently it’s on the books for 2037. There could be in reality a very good chance that it needs to be widened far out of that. I’m wondering if we could get some comment as to when thinking is for widening of commissioners that in that area.

So the widening is slated at 2037. Is Mr. Dale still with us? Maybe he could.

Yes, Madam Chair. Dr. Dale’s from the transportation division. I’m glad you’re still here.

Yes, so we, a growth project has been identified for this section of commissioners, essentially from Wonderland to West Mount Drive, Grandbook. That project is identified for 2033 currently and then further to the West, as was pointed at, we alignment through the snake hill areas actually showing for 2037, I believe at this time. So from what I understand, sorry, Councillor van Mirbergen, the road widening that is slated for 2033, that’s from Cranbrook to Wonderland? Yes, Madam Chair, that’s correct.

Okay. And then 2037 is snake hill. Right, further to the West, correct. Thank you.

Councillor van Mirbergen. My follow up to that is, is there allowance right now or is it part of the project currently to have a dedicated left-hand turning lane on commissioners going into the project when you’re heading West on commission? Through you, Madam Chair, Garfield Dale’s again. So as part of our assessment of the traffic volumes associated with this development, recognizing that it is a relatively small number of trips that would be generated, there are no plans for a turning lane directly into this development.

Thank you. So just to be clear, the thinking is they would just be in the normal lane of traffic. They would have to stop, wait to make the left-hand turn and thereby plugging out the traffic behind them. It’s already a fairly busy stretch there.

Is there any thinking that maybe a left-hand turning lane may be a good idea? Through the chairs, as I had mentioned, just with the volumes that are associated with this development, they wouldn’t warrant the need for a dedicated turn lane at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I see no further technical questions as staff. I’ll move on to the applicant. The applicant is here. If you could state your name and address.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Could you hear me? Mm-hmm. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Brian Blackwell, and I work for Stantec Consultant. I am the agent for Foxwood Developments on this file. Madam Chair, I’d like to start by thanking staff for working with us on this application, and we support staff’s recommendation for our ZBA application. Madam Chair, the revised site plan is on page 547 on the planning report.

This plan reflects revisions from urban design, transportation, site plan, department, city arvests, and engineering departments. We have provided a 7.37 meter road widening fronting commissioners road as requested by transportation. That is reflected on the plan. We have located the three and a half story stacks, fronting onto commissioners or urban design comments.

We’ve also allowed for sidewalk connections to commissioners road as per urban design comments. The three and a half stacks are 12 meters in height. This is the same height allowed in the underlying zone, R1-9. This block A has 12 units.

The two story stacks are located on the Southwest location of the site. These units are nine meters in height. This block B has 14 units. We have one access point fronting commissioners, which is supported by transportation.

I must mention that commissioners road is classified as a civic boulevard slash arterial road. This is one of the higher classifications of municipal roads in the city. Zoning requires 1.5 spaces per unit for parking. We are not requesting a reduction in the parking for the subject site.

We have a total of 43 surface parking spaces for this site. Humanity space is located between the two buildings, which is interconnected by sidewalks to the space. Madam chair, we have completed a tree report and have had discussions with the city’s arbors. All trees on common property limits will be retained.

All trees on city properties will be retained. The block maple was is retained after discussions with city staff on the east property limit, landscaping and screening. Boxwood has provided three layers of screening along the property limits. The first being shrubs screening along the property.

The second is new pre-planting along the property limits. And the third is a 1.8 meter board on board wooden fence along the boundary. We will also have planting at the front of the townhouse units. I should note that we have a 43% landscaping coverage on the subject site, zoning requires 30%.

We have also provided a greater landscaping setback along the east property limit at staff’s request. Madam chair, in conclusion, we did have a virtual public meeting on October 6th. 158 letters were delivered on September 23rd from the city of London mailing list. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I would like to go to committee members for any technical questions of the applicant. I see none.

I’d like to now go to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward with your name and address. And you have after five minutes. I’ll ask one more time.

If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment, please come forward. See none. So with that, I’d like to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman and Councillor Lewis.

We can vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

Members, I’m looking for a motion for comments. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation.

Looking for a seconder, mayor, seconding. And with that, I see the ward councilor is here. Councillor Van Merebergen, but I would like to go to committee members as well. First, we’ll go to the ward councilor.

Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m wondering, there seems to be a little bit of misinformation going around the community that somehow these are rental units that share a common hallway. Could I ask the applicant or if they could straighten that out and give us exactly what project is going to accomplish?

Councillor Van Merebergen. So the units fronting onto a corridor, sharing a corridor? No, there was some, I’d like to just have it clarified on the record. There’s misinformation, misconception in the community that these are rental units that share a common board or a common hallway inside.

And I just like it’s explained perhaps by the applicant of exactly what these units are and how they’re envisaged to be constructed. Thank you. If I can go to the applicant, if you can come forward, please. To you, Madam Chair, these units will not have a common corridor.

There’ll be separate access points. The units that are fronting onto commissioners are two-story stacked. The units that are behind the three and a half story stack, the two stories will have their own individual access points to these units. And I think at the public, the virtual public meeting, the owner indicated that these units would be in the price range, close to half a million.

Hurry up. Thank you. Right, so just to clarify, they are owned condo units. My second point was regarding the privacy fence.

And I know this is maybe more for the site plan, but meeting, but is it possible that we could look instead of a six-foot fence, perhaps something around eight feet? Is that in the realm of possibility? Going to from six to eight or six to eight? Yes, from six, currently the plan is for six feet, I believe, is it at all possible if it can go to eight feet?

On the, on what side? The privacy fence that’s currently being envisaged in the plan is at six feet. So I’m thinking of wherever there’s privacy fence, can that be eight feet? If I can go to staff to find out how that conversation can take place, I would have said for the site plan.

Through the chair to the councilor, it’s Mike P’s manager of site plan. So the councilor is correct. The site plan control by law does state six feet is the max height. The nice thing is that the fence by law does allow you to go to about seven feet.

So that provision can be worked in through the site plan process. Okay, that’s great. Thank you. Do you have any further questions?

Councillor them, they’re good. No, that’s great. Thanks very much. Thank you.

Before I go to committee members for any further comments, I’d like to make a few comments from the chair. And I know there were a number of responses and received from the community on this application. And as always, intos tend to be quite challenging for all of us. And I’m often asked, and in this situation was asked, how much is the right amount of intensity?

I know it’s come up before, but I am going to keep asking this question because it does change the existing neighborhoods when we have these infills. And I wonder if staff can just make a quick response. And in how we, what is the right amount or how can we determine how intense these infills can be given the challenges to these neighborhoods? How do we go about determining that?

Through you, Madam Chair, my core be here. I think part of determining that is obviously our public process and reaching out to see how the community feels about these infill developments. That’s part of the gauge. And then we rely on our policies about use intensity and form.

And that’s obviously what staff’s report looks at when we do our analysis. So I think it’s just again, a combination of all those things. What are the impacts on the abutting properties? Can they be mitigated if there are impacts?

And I think at the end of the day, that’s what has been presented to you in our staff report. Thank you for answering that. I know it’s a difficult question, but it’s something that I often hear from the public. And I always encourage the public to make their comments and explain how these infills are changing their neighborhoods.

So thank you for that. I will be supporting the application. I will make a quick note, a point out. Not sure if it’s incorrect, but in the recommendation, B-I-I-I, it says that we are retaining the black maple.

And I’ve heard that it’s a black walnut too. Are we talking about different trees here? That indeed, the tree 386 is a black maple, not a black walnut, just to… I’ll just leave that question with staff as I continue my comments.

And it is around the tree report. I think it’s really going to be important with this application that we do those refinements that are set out in the recommendation. If needed, there’s going to be a number of trees coming down. And this area is an area that is full of trees.

It is, it has the… It’s just a beautiful drive as you go west. And it’s something that is valued by this community. So I’d just like to encourage that refinements and everything that is necessary to preserve these trees and to add extra is needed.

And I think that is my comment for now. If staff has a follow up to the black maple walnut. Yes, Madam Chair, I’ve just double checked in the tree preservation report that tree that’s to be preserved along the East property line is a black maple. Thank you.

And with that, we have a motion before us if we can vote. Mayor Holder, closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero. And thank you.

And moving on to is our public participation meeting on the Masonville secondary plan. This time it is for adoption. And I know we have a very short presentation. Yeah, sorry, so I will open up the public participation meeting, thank you.

Hold on, if we can just have a moment to allow people to come into the meeting room and we can proceed. Just one moment. And with that, I think I can go ahead and open up the public participation meeting. If I can open up the public participation meeting, Mr.

Mayor, and seconded by Councillor Hill here. Although yes, Chair, and sorry but the last I was disconnected for a moment. Thank you, and I’ll just give another moment just to make sure we’ve got everyone in the room that would like to hear the presentation. I’d like to remind the committee members too we did proceed and number of added as well.

So with that, we’ll start the public participation meeting and I would ask Sonia Weiss, the planner on the file to do a brief presentation. I see the ward, one of the ward Councillors, Councillor Cassidy, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the planner, Sonia Weiss.

There are presentation slides beginning on page 793 of the added agenda package for anyone that would like to follow along. This file 08991 is for the Masonville secondary plan and it is being brought forward to you tonight for adoption. On slide one of page 794, it shows all of the lands within the secondary plan boundary as dark orange which are within the transit village place type in the London plan. Slide two shows a graphic of how the transit villages are intended to fit within the overall city structure.

So transit villages are second only to the downtown in terms of their overall range of uses, permitted heights and intensities, and access to higher order transit. They are intended to be exceptionally designed, high density mixed use urban neighborhoods. On slide three, policy 810 identifies that secondary plans may be prepared for a transit village to guide development, establish streets and pathway networks to identify park spaces, establish more detailed policies for land use, intensity and built form, and to create transitional and interface policies. So the function of the secondary plan is to establish more detailed policy guidance than the London plan, which are based on the unique characteristics and context of the Masonville area.

The secondary plan provides more certainty and identifies areas of development or areas of preservation and functions as an extension of the official plan. Slide four shows the entire plan area, which includes approximately 89 hectares of land, that extends from plain tree drive in the north to Shavian and Sunnyside in the south, from the Masonville Public School in the west to the uplands trail in the east. The majority of the lands are occupied by commercial and retail uses presently with surface parking, and there are existing residential neighborhoods towards the edge of the plan boundary. Slide five identifies some of the major community consultation events that have taken place since the plan initiation in 2019.

This includes three community information meetings, two of which were in person, a walking tour, various office hours, drop-in events and a bus stop survey. This is also the second public participation meeting at the planning and environment committee for this project. There have been more than 180 comments received through this project with more than 160 individuals wishing to be kept informed. Some of the overarching themes that have arisen are found on slide six, which include a concern for neighborhood transition from high rise to low rise areas, interest for growth projections and population targets, a desire to provide enhanced mobility connections to the surrounding area, a need for better pedestrian, cyclist and active transportation options, a desire for additional greening, depaving and community gathering spaces, concerns with how much park land is requested through this plan, a desire to increase height and intensity, and also concerns that height and intensity proposed are too great, concerns with minimum height requirements that don’t allow for interim development, concerns with current and future parking and traffic issues, desire to retain the existing specific policy area permissions and how active development applications would relate to the timing of the secondary plan.

Slide seven shows the community structure plan with some notable features, including point one. There’s a plan for three new parks in the northeast, northwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Richmond and Fanshawe. Point two is creating a focal point of development and intensity around the transit station. Point three is a creation of new connections for pedestrians, motorists and cyclists, which will help break up these large commercial blocks.

Point four, a commercial priority area is shown in blue. This area would have active ground floor uses. Point five shows a focused area of high rise development up to 22 stories shown in red. That’s nearest to the intersection of Fanshawe and Richmond, which is the furthest from the existing neighborhoods.

Point six shows the mid rise development area up to about eight stories shown as orange. And this will help transition down from the high rise areas. And point seven is a low rise area shown in yellow that recognizes and permits the existing low rise residential neighborhoods. Slide eight is recommending the adoption of the secondary plan to guide the future development of the area and to achieve the vision of the secondary plan.

And that vision is that the Masonville secondary plan area will be an exceptionally designed, high density mixed use urban neighborhood with convenient access to quality public transit and community gathering spaces. Through infill and redevelopment, the Masonville area will become an exciting, complete community that is balanced with places to live, work and play. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d be happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Wise. And before I go to any questions, I want to welcome Deputy Mayor Morgan as well to planning. So with that, I would like to ask the committee if there’s any technical questions or staff.

Dean Nunn and I’d like to go to the public now to make comments on the adoption of the Masonville secondary plan. Yes. On Zoom, we have Mike Kahncan. Ms.

Kahncan? Yes. Welcome. Can you see us?

Do you have your mute button off? I’m going to do a few things I’ve learned these past few year and a half. Okay. Yes, I just heard you there.

Okay, thank you. Yes, I just want to ask you to speak your name and if you can give us your address if you wish and you have up to five minutes. Sure. My name is Mike Kahncan.

I live at two font court. Hello and thank you for the opportunity of addressing you. I’ve been a resident of font court for the last 29 years. Firstly, I would like to thank Councillor Maureen Cassidy and the planning staff for listening to the concerns addressed by the residents of font court over the last number of months and the inclusion of the policy statements relating to our street in the current version of the plan.

Again, a big thank you to all involved. During the March 29 meeting of the same committee, I addressed this committee regard regarding the draft plan. Just to recap, the plan considers the addition of 6,023 residential units adding over 10,000 people to a 0.9 square kilometer area of space. Many of the points brought up during that presentation are still valid today, namely 0.1.

Current traffic, bottlenecks and gridlock at Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond Street. Studies recently presented to the city have shown that this intersection is currently over capacity. Fanshawe Park Road currently transports 33,000 vehicles in an east-west direction daily. Well, 27,000 vehicles traveled north-south on Richmond Street per day.

However, based on the statistics presented by the consulting firm, Stantec, I believe these numbers are grossly understated based on the timing and completion dates of the studies. I also believe that this is a very urgent issue where traffic flow improvements are already years too late. Our road system seemed to be the last consideration given in the planning stage. Many people I’ve spoken to are already using Medway Road as their northerly east-west route as the two-lane Sunnydale Road is becoming overly congested and Fanshawe is difficult to navigate.

The addition of more vehicles to the area, the 6,023 new residential units will add an additional 7,000 resident-owned vehicles within this 0.9 square kilometer plan area. This will again only add to the current gridlock conditions within this area unless the road systems are redesigned now to contend with all projected volume increases based on the plan and not reconstructed piecemeal prior to building approvals being granted as is stated in the plan. This redesign must include the winder section of Richmond Street, Western Road and Sunnyside. I believe including this winder section in the current road redevelopment process will greatly improve the traffic flow in the area.

We the residents cannot live in a state of road construction for the next 25 years as new development is added and congestion continues to grow, 0.3, construction traffic. During the summer months, I’ve witnessed bumper to bumper congestion on Fanshawe Park Road during this year’s bike lanes reconstruction project. Given the city’s current environmental concerns, how does the city plan on managing traffic during this reconstruction phase and minimizing idling time such that traffic flows smoothly, 0.4, an additional policy which I believe should it be added to the plan and used city wide is the requirement that building construction companies cannot impede traffic on a major thoroughfare by reducing lanes in front of a construction site for the storage of equipment, trucks, trains and delivery of goods. We have lived through this during the construction of 1235 Richmond Street at the Windermere Bridge along with the two towers at 545 Fanshawe Park Road at Wonderland, where one lane of traffic in a busy corridor is blocked for months on end to support construction, better construction planning by the developers, use of on-property locations and coordination with the city as a must to ensure that the flow of traffic is not impeded, 0.5, bike paths.

I applaud the city on their efforts on creating a bicycle plan. Currently, however, there are no bike paths south of the library on North Center Road. I would ask that this be dealt with in the short term and not within the timeframe of the plan, 0.6, parking plan, given that the plan calls for an increase in commercial, office and civic spaces by 52%, plus the new residential units, parking requirements will only increase. As we cannot assume that the BRT will be in place within the timeframe of the plan, sufficient parking must be allotted to ensure that the area can continue to support its stores and vendors.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or city staff may have regarding my listed points. Thank you, Mr. Konkin.

You came in right on time, and thank you very much for your comments. Next. Carla Tremblay. Ms.

Tremblay. Yes, hello. Yes, we can hear you. Please take your name and address for the committee, and you have up to five minutes.

Please proceed. Thank you. My name is Carla Tremblay, and I’m a resident of 94 Sunnyside Drive. I just want to start by echoing everything that Mr.

Konkin said, because my comment tonight is directed to the traffic in our area. As a resident of Sunnyside Drive for the last 24 years, I have watched the traffic increase annually. Drivers use it as a through way to Masonville Mall, and they have little regard for appropriate speed. There is an elementary school on our street, and cars are constantly speeding, and do not stop for pedestrians that are crossing the road.

I’ve seen three dogs hit by speeding vehicles, two of them died in front of my home, and my own dog was hit by a vehicle and left in the middle of the road with a mangled leg on Sunnyside Drive. I’m a longtime resident, and I am very concerned about the safety on Sunnyside Drive. As this area continues to develop, it will generate even more traffic issues on and around Sunnyside Drive. I’ve spoken with many residents in this area, and they have similar concerns.

They wonder why nothing has been done to stop this flow of traffic and to discourage speeding on our street. I’m truly hoping that the city has plans to put speed bumps on Sunnyside Drive in order to hopefully slow down the flow of traffic, slow down the speeding, keep residents safe, and to ensure that we aren’t going to have an increase in issues as this development starts to grow. Traffic is a huge problem in and around this area. I truly hope that the city plans on working with us to find a solution to this issue, because as a longtime resident, I honestly don’t think that it will be bearable to live on this street once these plans go through.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Conway, for your comments. Next, Laverne Kirkness.

Ms. Laverne Kirkness. Hello, Madam Chair and committee members. I’m here on behalf of Westdale Development Corporation, which you probably know owns and is currently constructing new buildings at the Northwest Corner and the Richmond Highland Commercial Center, the Northwest Corner of Fanshawe and Richmond Street.

And we have had a meeting with staff, a couple of meetings and looked at the secondary plan. And we appreciate that it’s really an implementation of policies out of the London plan where you need something more specific as a policy plan to evaluate projects. And we will be bringing projects forth. In fact, some are kind of on the front burner now to intensify our quadrant.

But what we fear is that the Masonville secondary plan can’t predict all that we need to be able to predict to use the language that it has. It has too many shells and not enough shoulds, I suppose. It does introduce quantities like six parking spaces on private streets and then we need a landscape buffer or we need a 250 square meter landscape area and those kinds of things. We don’t think should find their way into policy unless they’re coast in terms that you’re going to encourage that or you’re going to work towards those numbers as a target because they’re simply too absolute.

And if we come with a proposal that everybody loves but we can only do five spaces like we could all agree but we can’t get an approval because we defy the plan. And so we’re basically asking that the plan be looked at in terms of making it more general and less certain and speak of targets and speak of shoulds rather than absolute. I think one of the first points I made in the added communication was the uncertainty of the future and the difficulty it is to predict what’s going to happen. In addition to that, in terms of how we live and how we shop is particularly in these high density kind of urban village types things.

I think that Westdale has some commercial tenants that have long-term leases and renewals. And for them to kind of say, oh, you have to get out of the site or can’t lease anymore, it’s just not doable. And therefore, the implementation of the plan is going to take a long time. And this wording of the plan in terms of it being less absolute would help us work with phasing, redevelopment, intensifying, and in the end, and certainly work towards the objectives but we’re afraid that we’re going to triple ourselves or the city is going to make us triple ourselves in terms of the approvals and proper implementation of a master plan.

So I guess for an example, the public park situation and we do know we need the public park spaces up there but the plan calls for an urban park which is a definable term or a defined term. It has a half a hectare, it wants, which is about the size of staples and best buy if people know the Westdale center. They’re big stores and it’s a big area. And, you know, notwithstanding the city has taken cash and lieu for years and years up there.

We’re now faced with having to kind of provide for a half hectare park. And Westdale is willing to work towards that target but would like to do so, not within the context of an urban park necessarily, but a variety of ways of offering open space and particularly rooftop locations for spaces that are provided by condo apartment buildings, for example, or amenity spaces that are within the building. Now, I know there also has to be community space and Westdale realizes that too and we’re quite prepared to work with that but it doesn’t seem like anything that can be done on the private sector will count. We have to provide this urban park.

We would like it to be expressed as a target and we would like to have a coast in terms that we could provide it in a variety of ways. Lastly is the 25% affordable housing and we’re not sure what that means because the definition is the plan could actually maybe apply that 25% based on projected incomes based on the population and dwelling units that are forecasted. So we know what that means. So there are those kind of unknown.

So that’s why you’re here. Mr. Kirkness, you’re coming to an end of your five minutes. I’m coming to an end by my last sentence.

Sorry. And that is basically you have the plan, looked at, relucked at and make the wording less certain. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Paul, or could I speak? Can I have that name again, please? Paul, brick. Yes, please proceed.

If you could stated your name and address and you have up to five minutes. My name is Paul Orick. I live at 122 St. B’s Court, just off Richmond Street, just included in the periphery of this development area.

I am responding as a concerned citizen, a person in the neighborhood that’s gonna be affected and also a representative of Amra, which is Old Masonville Association. My comments are this Masonville secondary plan is really confusing. Is it the final plan? Where did the initial plan come from that we have been talked to over the years, but it never seemed to be a real plan.

It’s very confusing and now adding in apartments and others type things. It just seems a very piecemeal type document. Residents in the neighborhood have complained about traffic for more than 10 years. Mike Kona couldn’t have some specifics, but I want to state that the traffic study that he referred to was dated October 22nd, 2015.

As residents, we went to that meeting and that’s what this traffic density is based on for the development. Since this time, City Hall has dropped in four major apartment buildings at Masonville Mall. There are two condominiums on Sunnydale Road. There are all the extra townhouses on Sunnydale Road by the golf course.

It’s almost fully developed all the way to Adelaide on Sunnydale Road. All this traffic needs to come down Richmond Street in the morning and this is after the 2015 study. So I think it’s laughable that the City Hall can go on these numbers from 2015. When as Mike said, there’s gonna be 10,000 apartments going into Masonville Mall that we’re not accounted for in this traffic study.

I think this whole corner development is very flawed and studies and planning requirements are based on outdated information. And I don’t think a shovel should be put in the ground until the current traffic study is done and not right now with COVID because that was another thing I heard a rumor that it was a subsequent traffic study in late 2020. Well, there was no traffic because everybody’s at home with COVID. So this traffic study and the way this development is being planned as a resident and I’m very concerned that the City Hall is just charging ahead with massive urban development and as Mike said, no concern for traffic.

I have one final comment to make and on the boundaries of this development, it all seemed reasonable to go around the commercial areas, Fanshawe, Richmond. But as a resident, I have a specific concern that the Western President’s property is like a little thumb stuck out on top. And I don’t know if that’s a commercial money passing back and forth during Western in the city or what, but that is a very historic site, almost like Elsie Perrin. And I have real concern as to why the Western property as that little thumb sticking north on Richmond Street was included in this whole development plan.

Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Ory, for your comments. Moving on.

Josie and committee rooms one and two. I can go to committee room one and two. If you can state your name and address and you have that two, five minutes. Welcome.

Good evening City Hall. My name is Josie Devon Chenzel. I’m at North Center Road and they have to excuse me for missing the previous meeting. So I’m just sort of been listening to all of the comments, previous ones and also having to do with Masonville’s secondary plan.

I am really concerned like some of the ones other persons have been discussing about the high rises, the traffic. And I can’t seem to understand if a company like Cadillac Fairview, whoever owns it now, want to build a 20 story high rise in the parking lot. Traffic is unbelievable right now and it’s not just a nice deal. And also I’d like to, I’m wondering, whatever happened to top of that rain road.

This was happening about 20, 30 years ago that was taught of a rain road. Like it almost feels like London’s turning you to like a small Toronto. And don’t get me wrong, that’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing, but it would be really nice to preserve some of our natural boundaries that we already have.

And like many other cities and other places of the world, a rain road does work. So I mean, Wonderland is a nightmare to drive on, but a financial is terrible some days. I mean, I’ve been to, I kind of in somebody said, once I was at a part of the kitchen. Well, we don’t really need everything.

Just take all the other groups. Well, I’ve tried that. It’s not the best solution. So I’m just hoping, I’m sorry if I haven’t had a chance to look at all of the pertinent information of the charts and all you were talking about, but you know, public transportation, I used to take the bus all the time.

Right now, I don’t very often. I’ll be here again on this week. But we’ve got the go trains now. We’ve got the other trains.

But some more viable type of transportation would be great. If, I guess we need to know whether part of people getting around, you know, has weighed many cars. This is just sort of exploded like in the early year or two. And there’s all these little pockets, these little satellite channels of areas are in London.

But like, you know, now I can’t talk very long ‘cause I’m gonna get a ticket parked on the street here. Just to consider some other kind of rival, if a rain road would work. And the other concern was about really high rises in areas, do they, can they do that? I understand you this, I don’t know.

Because you own a big vault. You just put a 2030 story apartment building in there. What can you do with all the people, the traffic, all the services that you’re going to need? And also, we do wanna retain some of the four cities, beautiful public spaces.

Thank you for your concern, all right. Thank you very much, Josie, for coming out and for your comments. Is there anyone else? Okay, I’ll ask one more time.

If there’s anyone else from the public that would like to make their comments, please come forward. My moment. Welcome, sir. If you can state your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes.

My name is Ron Steensmaier, I live on 145 Fort Center Road. There’s a lot of talk about traffic. And I noticed in London in the past, there’s construction on one of the major arteries. Let’s say it’s a north-south artery and a parallel artery going north-south.

There was both the other construction at the same time. So of course, if one is under construction, you tend to use the alternatives to one parallel. So my concern is that there’s an underpass planned on Adelaide, where the railroad is. Now, it’s when that’s under construction, well, they’re also, so people will then tend to go to Richmond from Adelaide, right, to go north-south.

Well, there’ll also be construction on Richmond or the same time. I think that’s something to consider so that the parallel north-south routes aren’t both under construction. The other thing that I wonder about, I heard that there were eight different slides that you have the ability to look at regarding the secondary mason bill plan, but I didn’t get a chance to see it. Is there any chance of getting that on to public domain?

That’s all I have, thank you. Thank you for coming out and for your comments. And with that, I’ll ask one more time. May I please just confirm that Dave Treher and Lyman Midawi do not want to speak?

That’s correct. Lebron Kirk just spoke for us already. Thank you for being here. And with Madam Chair, yes?

Sorry, it’s Barb Westlake Power again. We do have a couple of people in the waiting room. So I need to know if staff have forwarded the link because I haven’t moved them into the meeting part because I don’t have their identities ahead of time. So if there’s somebody else that was expected from staff, it would be helpful to know if they should be brought into the meeting.

If I can go to staff, if there’s anyone else that should be added. This is Ms. O’Hagan. I don’t believe our staff forwarded to anyone.

So we’re not expecting anyone to have signed on. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, I’ll ask one more time.

If there’s anyone here that would like to make a comment, please do so. If not, I will close the public participation meeting for a mover and a secondary. Councillor Lehman, Councillor Hill here. And if we can vote to close with that, I’d like to move on to the committee.

And for any comments, but before I do that, if I can go to the, if you will allow me, Councillor Cassidy and Deputy Mayor Morgan, welcome again. If you have any comments, Councillor Cassidy. Go for it. Thank you.

Thanks to Madam Chair. Yeah, I’m the Deputy Mayor and I were both saying anyway. Armrest, what? Armrest, so forth.

Yeah, no, I’m fine. But since you called on me, I’ll go first. I’m happy with where we’ve landed here. I’m pleased to hear Mr.

Konkan and his comments towards staff, especially and the listening, because I really, you know, if you look at the timeline that this plan has been worked on, it’s two years. And a lot of work has gone in and a lot of that work was community engagement. And this really was, for me, probably one of the best processes of community engagement that I’ve been involved in with city staff and something happening in Ward 5. So I really am happy with where this has landed.

I really, I agree with Mr. Konkan that the listening that took place from staff, listening to the concerns of the community and not only making changes where necessary, but also explaining rationale and reasoning behind some of the things that were added to the plan. So I also wanna add my thanks to staff for the hard work that they have put in. And it’s interesting to see every time this has come before the public, whether here at a public participation meeting or at the different community engagement meetings that have taken place over the years, we always have new people coming out, new people finding out about it throughout the process.

And it is difficult to catch everybody that has an interest in this and make sure that they’re aware from the start. But I’m also very pleased to hear people continuing to hear about it and continuing to get engaged. So I’m going to repeat some comments that I always make when we talk about secondary plans, but when we talk about the Masonville Secondary Plan in particular, I keep mentioning to people that this is not a development application. This is not the city saying we’re going to build these things here or even that these things will absolutely be built.

It’s important that people that don’t understand exactly what’s going on here, it’s important that they know that a secondary plan provides protection for existing neighborhoods and people that are living in the area. So right now the Masonville area is zoned as a transit village and that zoning allows a certain height and density. So already anywhere in the Masonville area that is part of the transit village place type, a tall build, an application for a very tall building could come in. And right now it would fit the zoning, it meets the policies and most likely an application like that would get approved.

So a secondary plan is more specific and directs those higher densities towards the busier streets. So pushing those taller buildings towards the Richmond and Fanshawe intersection area gives more protection to the lower density residential neighborhoods that are surrounding this area. So it provides that transition. So what this really is is a protection for the existing neighborhoods.

And we really, it’s important to see these secondary plans go through and to get these protections in place for the area. The growth will not happen overnight. This is a long-term plan. So we’re not going to see a whole bunch of high-rise applications going up.

But we do know that the Masonville area is one of the areas that is in highest demand. We heard Mr. Kirkness and all the plans that the landowner at the northwest quadrant of this area, all the plans that they already have in place. And if you drive past the area, you see building going on on some of these sites.

So we know that this is a high demand area. We know that there will be planning applications coming in. So it’s important to have this secondary plan in place to guide the development that we know will happen. But again, it’s not going to happen overnight.

It’s not going to happen simultaneously. Cadillac Deriview owns a big chunk of this land. They had come forward with a planning application a while ago, a few years ago, but they have put those plans on hold right now. And when a new application comes through, it will have to adhere to this secondary plan and follow the rules that will be in place once Council passes this plan.

As far as, you know, not having specifics in there and we don’t know how things are going to be. There’s this uncertainty. That’s the secondary plan is supposed to help this neighborhood, help it grow, help it develop and protect the residential areas that surround it. And so that’s really kind of what we want.

We want a little bit more certainty in this area. So right now, the people on Fawn Court, you know, would not want to see a 22-story building built right across the road from them. So that’s where we want this certainty that no, a 22-story building will not be built adjacent to a street like Fawn Court. So that is the kind of certainty that the neighborhoods are looking for and the kind of protection that we want to give them.

So, and as far as, again, there was that gentleman and I’m sorry, I missed his name, but he is on North Center Road. And he asked about this construction happening and would it happen simultaneous to the construction that’s going to take place at the Adelaide Road underpass? But again, this is not a development application. There is no imminent construction about to take place on Richmond Street or in this Masonville area.

We will see development applications come in just like we would have expected them to come in even without a secondary plan. Madam Chair, with that, I do have one tiny question. Somebody brought up the, I mean, I think it was Mr. Concan brought up the intersection at Western Road and Richmond Street.

Now, the previous plan was that that was going to be part of the bus rapid transit corridor and part of the construction of the bus rapid transit line on Richmond Street that did not proceed for a funding request. So it’s not any kind of imminent thing. And I’m sorry, I’m trying to be very conscious of Deputy Mayor and past conflicts that he has raised. So I’m not trying, I don’t want to bring up BRT or anything like that, but I do have a question about that intersection with that plan on indefinite hold.

How will we improve that intersection? Are there any plans to improve the Richmond Street and Western Road intersection, even if it’s not part of any rapid transit design? Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. With that question, I’ll go to staff regarding the Western Road and Richmond intersection and how will it be improved?

Hi, Madam Chair, it’s Garfield Dales from the Transportation Division. I’ll take a initial response on that and then Sarah Grady from our end who’s leading our mobility master plan may also add. So we currently don’t have an active project at that intersection. We are, there is some active work in the area.

I point to the environmental assessment study that we have on Windermere Road at this time. And then also, we certainly talked about earlier intersection improvements at Fanshawe Park Road and Richmond. But as part of our mobility master plan that we will be initiating or is underway shortly, that the entire corridor will be examined looking at potential improvements including transit related improvements. Councillor Cassidy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And the biggest issue in the area is and always has been traffic. And I know we’re going forward with the mobility master plan. I really hope you will look beyond the transit village area.

And as it was Ms. Trumblay pointed out the traffic that cuts through the newer Masonville subdivision on the east side of Richmond Street. It really is bad, speeding is an issue. We did delay reducing the speed limits on those neighborhood connector streets.

I’m hoping that that delay will go away. We will implement the lower speed limits on those streets. And that may help. Also, we are implementing traffic calming like speed bumps immediately around schools.

So the St. Cattery School around there will qualify. And I believe they are on the list to get speed bumps. But for staff, I really hope that they will look at these areas where there is serious concerns with cut through traffic and serious concerns with speeding.

And those are my comments, Madam Chair. I’m conscious I’m not on the committee and I’m taking up a lot of time. So thank you so much for letting me speak. Thank you for your comments.

Deputy Mayor Moore, you’re getting welcome. Yes, thank you. And the good thing about Councillor Cassidy going before me is I don’t have to say as much because she covered some of the points that I would have covered. And so I’ll just, there is one I do want to reemphasize because I think it has come up every time we spoke about this, often as as Councillors, one of the challenges we face with engaging with our constituents is when a change like this is proposed, some folks like it and some folks do not.

And for me, I always try to engage in a discussion about what are we changing from? And Councillor Cassidy had mentioned this a little bit, but currently under the London plan, the official plan of the city of London, within the entire area, heights of between two and 22 stories are contemplated. You can build between two and 15 stories in most areas now with Bonusing, which is a process, a planning process of going up to 22 stories. There are a few specific areas that are excluded from that that already have applications under play, but that is the current context under which we’re layering a secondary plan on.

So for many of the concerns about traffic and density and height, it’s important to know that the current official plan for the city allows for a very intense area over the entire area of this plan. And the secondary plan is coming on top of that and saying what we’re actually gonna do is change and amend the official plan of the city of London to add a secondary plan, which will then adjust where those heights and densities can occur within the Masonville planning area. So for those who are interested, the maps that show where the height and density land are very important because the highest of the high, the 22 stories with Bonusing is only contemplated in some areas now along Richmond Street and Fanshawe and more tightly compacted around the intersection. The areas where there are residential homes and in some case single family homes that about the area, those are areas where you see the low rise, the two to four story range of density.

And so where Councilor Cassidy called this a secondary plan protects the existing residents, that is no more clear than when you look at density and where density is allowed. Right now in my side of the ward, you could see very, very high densities of budding single family homes. And so for me, this plan is supportive of those neighborhoods because it’s moving those down to two to four stories in some cases rather than two to 22 stories in range. The other thing that you heard was it also adds green spaces in some areas, there is nowhere contemplated to be significant greening of the area with the intensity.

And so often if you’re going to allow us for some intensity, you get some public trade offs. And one way to do that is with new park spaces and new green spaces. As Councilor Cassidy mentioned, this isn’t a plan where the city is gonna go and build it, but it is the framework under which people will have to develop. And that will put some restrictions on what you can do if you don’t achieve some of the goals of this plan.

So as we go through this official plan amendment, and it is okay to change the official plan from time to time when you’re in situations like this because through that public feedback and that engagement of this process, we know that height and density is really important and where it lands is really important. So it can still be an intensified area, but in an area that steps down to those residential neighborhoods. On the traffic concerns, I know that we are in the middle of making improvements to the Richmond and Fanshawe intersection, which hopefully will help increase the number of stacking lanes. If there are a couple of dual left turning lanes, if there’s the ability for traffic to go through a little more as you add right and left hand turning lanes to clear the traffic that is blocking those lanes.

But we also have the integrated traffic management system coming, which is a controlled and integrated signalization system across the city to allow for lights to be changed, to allow backlogs to flow through in one direction or another in both an automated and an overseen by an operations center and an individual person sort of way to clear backlogs in more real time and in a more coordinated way across the city. How that will help at the end of the day, we will see once it’s implemented, but there are some changes that will greatly impact traffic in the area. But I certainly hear the concerns that some have raised about traffic and density and how they’re related. Part of the concept here is Masonville Mall is a big employer.

There are lots of jobs there. And ideally, there are some people who will move into the neighborhood who will be working very close to home and hopefully will not be as reliant on vehicles. That’s obviously not everybody, but perhaps there will be some. And there are already people living in the neighborhood who work in those locations.

But for me, I am supportive of the current iteration of the plan because it moves from something that I think people would be very upset about if we allowed to go through and come to fruition, the two to 22 stories everywhere, and moves it to a way that is much more controlling of the heightened density of that area. And so the one thing I’ll end with is there was a question by a gentleman who wanted to see the slides. The slides are posted on the city’s website under the added agenda. And hopefully, a staff member can point that gentleman in the right direction so that he can see them.

There’s a very good map on slide seven that shows where the heightened density is. So I’ll leave it at that. And I look forward to hearing the committee’s discussion. Thank you for being here and for your comments as well.

Is there a motion on the floor? If you can remind me committee members, there’s no motion on the floor. So I guess before we start with comments, there should, I’d like to get a motion on the floor to adopt the Masonville Secondary Plan, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

I actually do have some questions, but I’ll move the staff recommendation so we can frame our discussion around that. For sure. And with that, I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Hilly area. And I’ll go to you, Councillor Lewis then.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you to our staff, I want to pick up on something that we heard from a member of the public and Mr. Kirkness is known to all of us as a planning consultant. But through you, he mentioned the should instead of shall concern that we have.

And I just want to clarify for the public’s understanding that this secondary plan, much like the London Plan or other secondary plans, is of course, a bit of a living document that’s subject to amendment and change as particular applications come along. And so if staff could indicate a response, shall doesn’t not preclude exceptions being given or alterations being given on individual applications, correct? This is a, once again, a guiding document. Ms.

Wise or Ms. Hagen? Through you, Madam Chair. So the directive words are set out in the purpose and use of the secondary plan.

The term shall does indicate a mandatory course of action where it is used. The term should provide potential flexibility as long as the intent of the policy is met. Does that help you? That is somewhat helpful, yes.

Although it is likewise concerning. When I hear the words mandatory and then the other, shall is mandatory and should provide some flexibility, I do get concerned about shalls because as we know, individual applications, as we deal with them here at planning or situations that arise at other committees as well, we have to look at the specifics of the situation. So that’s a bit concerning to me. And I’m gonna see what other committee members have to say about that.

I also did want to just offer a quick comment on, we heard a number of concerns about traffic and I know that Councilor Cassidy and Councilor Morgan, or Deputy Mayor Morgan, probably hear those all the time in their words just as we do in our own words. And I don’t say this to refute the public concerns as they’re legitimate concerns, but I did check on the sunny side street in particular. And I know that there have been speed studies done there. And certainly, if we move ahead as Councilor Cassidy indicated with the 40 kilometer and hours, those 43 and 47 kilometer and hour averages would be an issue.

But I did want to offer that because I think it’s important for members of the public to know that traffic calming the speed cushions and other measures are typically instituted by a public participation process themselves by a petition of residents in the neighborhood. So if that’s something that the neighbors feel is necessary, they can certainly find that petition by contacting their Councilor or going on the city website and undertake that themselves. The only place where traffic calming currently is not subject to that petition process is in the immediate school zones. So if there are residents still listening, I’m sure Deputy Mayor Morgan or Councilor Cassidy would be happy to provide you with the petition process if you feel traffic calming is necessary on some of those streets.

And then we would undertake a speed study and see what the most appropriate course of action is from there. So I did want to share that and I’ll end my comments there for now and see what other members of the committee have to say. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thanks very much, Chair. First I’ll agree with Councilor Cassidy when she indicates that bus rapid transit on the Richmond Street leg, if you will, was defeated. And it was, and certainly not recommended nor do I anticipate going forward that that particularly as proposed originally that we will see bus rapid transit on the Richmond all the way north. But I will not ignore the reality that Richmond and Fanshawe is certainly and anticipated as a major transit area, which does give way to higher intensity.

And so here we have this situation where the secondary plan is intended to quell some concerns, potentially in the neighborhood, although I didn’t necessarily hear that in public comments today, but the idea of having higher intensity in these areas was certainly considered if you are a considered a major transit hub. What’s interesting though is that, you know, I heard of the protection of existing neighborhood areas as part of the intent behind the secondary plan. And I think we all get that. I’m going to throw out something a little bit different and something that’s in your package as well.

And that is the, what about protecting existing commercial areas? We have an irony here where some of our commercial landowners, particularly at the areas in Fanshawe and Richmond do not want to necessarily go up to more than one, to a current one story if they get permission. They would be very happy to have one story because often in the case of a lot of retail, that is what works best for them. So you’ve heard several of the property owners in those corners come back and say, we would like to have the flexibility to keep it smaller.

But according to the secondary plan, we cannot do that. They would have to, if they’re looking to build, go to a secondary, a second story or more. And so here you have property owners who may well have the ability to build on their properties. Wanting to go smaller without that flexibility.

And I’ll come back to Councillor Lewis’s comments about Shao versus should. What these property owners are looking for is less not more, or at least have the flexibility of less not more. So my question would be to staff, if we had applications, and I’m going to presume that they are, because we know the corners, we’ve got law laws, which is a single story, a large retail outlet. You’ve got the Westdale development on the North West corner, which except for the most recent development on the actual corner of Fanshawe and Richmond has primarily one story, has only one story properties.

We have on the South West corner, one story properties. And of course, then we have Masonville Mall and the transit components there. My question to staff is, how they would view, based on the secondary plan, if an application came in for a single story on those properties, how those would be treated. And I appreciate that speculative, but I wonder in light of the secondary plan, how that would be considered.

And if I can just clarify as well, this is for commercial. This is, yes, thank you. I’m talking specifically commercial, Chair. Yes, if I can go to Ms.

Wise. Thank you, Madam. Sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. So in terms of the mayor’s question, the secondary plan is really establishing a new direction for how the area will grow.

There is the intent that there’s a minimum of two stories. This is to promote a more compact development form and also to promote a more mixed use development form. So it would integrate better, more commercial uses and potentially residential and commercial uses. I’m sorry, go ahead, please.

I was going to clarify. Pardon me. What we see currently is a lot of one story, single tenant commercial uses. And if a new application was to come in, we would expect to see it achieve the minimum as required by the plan.

It doesn’t affect at all the existing buildings. Those are free to continue on as long as they are viable, but it would change the future direction for expectation. Thank you very much. I’m going to, the thing I was going to correct, you said it would be better.

And I respect that that’s a value judgment. If I ask owners of properties who really put their own financial investments into this, that might be the case and it may not. And so where I’m trying to take this is that you’ve indicated clearly that two stories are nothing and at least two stories are nothing. I think if I want to be clear and I think that’s, I think your impression is quite correct to what the secondary plan is intended to do.

But I look at the letters from these areas, the north, south and on the west side and the north side on, I’m sorry, the north and south on the west side and the north on the east side. And it’s pretty clear that they would like to have the flexibility. And I would like to give them that flexibility of less not more. We talk about congestion.

We talk about the concerns rightly expressed by residents about concerns and we’re trying to get it all right. And we’ve had very respectful letters from commercial development. But that becomes an issue I think fundamentally. When you put in absolute and arbitrary rules around these things, I don’t mean you and I don’t mean that please to staff.

I don’t mean it that way at all. But when we put in place, we as counsel, put in place arbitrary rules, well, kind of that’s it. So I’m going to come back to Councilor Lewis’s comment about should not show in hopes that part of the expectation would be that as these things come forward, and I don’t know that any of them have anything in the hopper, but let me ask a separate question through your chair to staff. If someone has a pending application now or it’s sometime in the very near future, but if it’s even now, what’s the status of that?

Does that get grandfathered into the old rules or does that become an arbitrary determination based on Council’s approval of the secondary plan? Maybe I’ll take that one. It’s a more general one than say the specifics to the folks. The determinant is when the application is determined to be complete.

So if an application comes in, it’s determined to be complete prior to this being enforced in effect, then it would be under the other policies. If an application comes in and is deemed to be complete after this is done, then it would be under these new policies or these new rules as Council would adopt them. Yeah, Mr. Barrett, I appreciate that’s really super clear.

And I appreciate both of your sets of answers, by the way. And I think when we look at the correspondence that we’ve received, all of these corporate commercial letters of concern talked about the preference, if I will, of should not show, to allow staff for that matter, to have flexibility to be consistent within a self-contained parcel of land, that is to say, you look at any of those areas I’ve noted, and many of them are well-developed. And there may not be much, much room for more. It’s not for me to say.

But there will be opportunities I’m speculating. But to tell business how to do its business, I find if we as Council tell business how to do its business, I would have some great concerns around that. So again, I’ll reserve the right to weigh back in. But I appreciate Chair, and I appreciate staff’s answers.

Thank you. Thank you. I see Councillor Cassidy’s hand is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I’m just going to jump in, and I appreciate you recognizing me again, knowing that I’m not on this committee. But I really want to urge the committee to pass this plan the way it’s written. These aren’t arbitrary rules that we are designing ourselves on the fly as Councillors. These are professional judgments and opinions that are being recommended to us by our staff, our learned and experienced staff.

And I just want to point to an example. I often give the example of 230 North Center Road as a reason why secondary plans are good for neighborhoods that are in an area near a secondary plan. A 230 North Center Road at the beginning of this term of council, this council approved a 15-story building on that site that came through as an application from TRICAR. Under this secondary plan, the limit on the height of that building would have been eight stories, if it had been processed with this secondary plan in place.

The reason I bring that up is the conflict that that application caused and the angst that that caused in the immediate neighborhood to the south. On the opposite side, one gentleman that spoke tonight was from 145 North Center Road. There are a series of condos on the south side of North Center Road that are single-story. And the big problem that this proposed high rise caused for these single-story homeowners was caused because that land where those single-story condos were built was zoned medium density and at higher heights.

And at some point in the past, the developer came forward with an application and asked to downzone. So when we make these changes that are not the recommendations of our learned staff, but our own recommendations based on petitions that have come forward from the developer, there are often these unforeseen circumstances down the road. So all of these homeowners on the south side of North Center Road were very much against this high rise. The high rise met the zoning requirements of the day, which was up to 22 stories.

And so their application was approved for 15 stories. So when we’re looking at having a requirement to have two stories on these commercial sites, it is what we want to see in the Masonville area is a complete neighborhood, where there is commercial, where there is residential, where there is access to transit, where people can walk to do their shopping, walk to take the bus, and stay in the neighborhood as much as possible, with as little commutes, few commutes as possible. When if we’re going to get rid of that second story and therefore get rid of that possibility of additional residential, we’re pushing the residential out of this high density zone, where we want to see that take place. And instead, we’re going to push to have more urban sprawl and more commuting rather than these complete neighborhoods.

So there is a beauty to this secondary plan. Everything is connected. The park space makes a livable community, access to transit, walking to their employment, if they choose to, and so I’m urging the committee to keep this secondary plan as it’s written, keep it whole, and please don’t try to adjust it. We have done almost three years of work with the people in this area, the developers and the landowners, everybody has had a chance to weigh in, and we are now with the 11th hour.

After so much work, I’m urging the committee to please leave the plan as it’s written. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. I’d like to go to other committee members. Councillor Layman.

Well, this is an interesting conversation ‘cause I’ve heard kind of contradictory remarks. I thought one of the benefits of a secondary plan was to protect those folks on the outskirts of the zone against high rises, you know, I’ve heard a few times that without a secondary plan, they risk, you know, apartments 22 stories high, and now we’re going down to eight, but yet I also hear the benefit of this plan is that it’s high density, so there’s more people in here, which addresses, which concerns me because of the high traffic situation on, you know, at that intersection, which I understand, Deputy Mayor Morgan’s cracked, hopefully will be addressed by the plans for that intersection in the improvement that was passed earlier by this council. Also, I’ve listened to concerns from members of restrictive language, and that does concern me ‘cause it kind of backs up what the owner of the property on the Northwest talked about having hands tied so it’s not very difficult to move forward. Reinforced, I guess, maybe by Cadillac Fairview’s news that, you know, they’re pulling back on their immediacy of the plans for the development on their land there.

So I’m kind of in a quandary here. One hand, I understand the need for protection for those living around the area on height, for sure. On the other hand, to prescriptive language, might lead to, like, very limited development at the end of the day. We might not get what we’re intending here, which is to have that mixed use area planned as foreseen by the secondary plan.

So I understand we’re at the 11th hour too, and a lot of work has gone on here. Councilor Cassie is right. You know, after three years, we get to the point just to go back to the drawing board. It’s a hard challenge here.

I do not like to tie the hands, not only of the planning department, but future councils with two, definitely, which, oh, that’s just my thoughts right now, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Are there any other comments? Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, I just want to get clarification from our staff on the process moving forward. As we know from other applications, from other secondary plans, and the entire process, there are appeal mechanisms to these. And because we did hear the concern about shell versus should, this plan moving forward would still be something that is open to appeal if, in fact, somebody had a specific concern about a shell in that plan that they felt was too restrictive.

Is that not correct? I’ll ask staff that question. Through you, Madam Chair, that’s correct. This is an official plan amendments and would be subject to the planning appeals for the planning act.

Thank you. Thank you for that, Madam Chair. That gives me a little more surety, that because there are a lot of shells in the plan. And a lot of the shells in the plan, I actually agree with.

And to some of Councilor Cassidy’s points about people being able, if they choose to walk to work and doing those kind of things where the sidewalks and the active transportation facilities are integrated into the planning process, those kind of things. So I’ve been listening to both of the word counselors to my colleagues here. I think I can support this moving forward right now. I think that we may or may not see appeals on specific restrictive language, but that’s up to our staff and those interested in developing the area to come forward with.

I see one or two myself that are a little concerning, but I don’t want to hold up all the work that has gone into this. And there has been, and kudos to our staff for the public engagement that has gone on in this. I think that it’s well deserved. I know Councilor Cassidy has raised it.

But when I was looking through the process, as I was reading the report on the level of engagement that has happened, I think it’s been very much praiseworthy. So thanks to them for that. And understanding that there is still an appeal mechanism if there are some lines in here that people are not happy with, makes me feel more confident in supporting the overall work going forward. Thank you, Councilor Lewis.

And if the committee will allow me to make a comment from the chair, I will be supporting this recommendation in the adoption of the Masonville Secondary Plan. And one of the big reasons I’ll be doing that is I have a secondary plan in my ward, Southwest Area Plan. It’s, it guides basically how we develop. Doesn’t tell us what to do.

It can be appealed. It doesn’t stop development. Secondary plans are there to give that a better understanding on how to develop in a certain area. And in areas like Masonville, I have an area that is all about development and the challenges of how neighborhoods are changed and how we move around are great.

And the secondary plan just guides us, gives us that extra bit of understanding on how this area moves forward. We just had an update on our secondary plans at the beginning of this meeting, doing housekeeping rules. Things can be reviewed and changed as we go forward. Not so much the plan, but just the housekeeping rules and keeping up to date.

And it is important to note that it can always be challenged as well. I wanna just thank staff two to three years of public engagement. I wanna thank the public for coming out and expressing their feelings on what is going on in their neighborhood. I’m listening to that.

I wanna hear from that neighborhood. I wanna hear from the counselors. They see and they get the emails and the concerns. So I am very supportive moving forward.

I hope staff will reach out to the resident, like Deputy Morgan said. We’d like to get the slideshows. I know sometimes it’s difficult to just go on the website and pick it up. So I would encourage staff to do that.

And again, thanks staff for all the work that went to this public participation engagement for the plan. And with that, I’ll see no further comments if we can. I apologize. I just wait for a brief moment.

I heard what Councillor Hopkins had to say. I will support. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Almost there.

We’re coming to the last public participation item. Oh, no, I’m sorry, items for direction. And that this is an application for Brownfield, CIP incentive. And to committee members, it’s coming to us because it is not administrative.

It’s a council directive here. And this is an application. I understand there is a request for delegation status by Mr. Knusten.

He is not too much requesting a delegation, but he is here from what I understand to answer any questions on this application. So with that, I’d like to go to the committee for any comments, questions that they may have. So this application is to seek financial incentives through the Brownfield CIP to cover the cost of remediation. As you can see through the recommendation, it sets out the amounts here.

And this is an application. I understand there is a request for delegation status by Mr. Knusten. He is not too much requesting a delegation, but he is here.

And if I can go to the committee for a recommendation or a motion or a comment. I’m sorry, Chair, what’s the motion for, please again? This is an application for Brownfield community improvement plan incentives. This is the 250-272 Spring Bank drive.

Yeah, no, no, I know where we are. Then I have a question, please. Of staff? Always of staff, they have wisdom.

Yes, please proceed. Well, I’m sorry, I thought you were looking for it to be put on the floor. I don’t know if there was a seconder. Yes, Councillor Lewis and Councillor Lehman is seconding.

All right, thank you. Then I’ll go ahead, if I could, please, Chair. To staff, I understand what this is intended to do in terms of providing incentives over a period of time due to the Brownfield redevelopment of that property. And I understand the impacts of the various spring components and development charges and the like that are being considered for this.

And then ultimately, they will be good tax-paying citizens long-term. My question to staff is, do we have precedent with having done this recently or within the city’s history where we’d provide these kinds of incentives for Brownfield properties? I’ll go to staff on this one. I recall one a couple of years ago, but all that stuff.

Madam Chair, it’s Michael Thomas-Insec here. And I have to apologize. I’m the third stringer tonight. I’m here to assist Jim Yanchula and Graham Bailey and also to acknowledge the work that they did on this report.

But to respond to the question, on page 817 of your agenda, there are some examples there. I apologize, that’s not the right page, but I’ll find the page in a second. But the staff report does include examples where this has been done in the past. And as soon as I find that page in the report, here we go, it’s at page 824.

There are five examples where this has been approved in the past and the most recent one was at 391 South Street. And that one was for almost four and a half million. And but for an example of five where they’ve been approved, you can find those on page 824 of the agenda. For some reason, my convenience is at page 823.

So thank you for that, that’s helpful. I’m prepared to support this chair. It’s certainly a certain history of having done this. And again, longer term needs become, I mean, this is the cost to mitigate a property and then we’re supporting that effort.

And from there, they will be in a position to appropriately pay taxes in the longer term medium. Excuse me, I’ll even say medium term. So I’m supportive. Thank you.

And Councillor Hill here. Thank you very much. I know this area very, very well. I used to skate on the pond right behind it and I have friends that live on Cove Road.

And I’m looking over the environmental remediation and the dewatering. And I’m seeing one fee of 102,000, another one of 236 on the first page, I believe. And I’m very concerned about building this area just because I do know something of construction on Duke nearby and I’m worried about the water. And I’m worried, has this been taken into consideration?

This is a very, very large area. That pond has been there forever. I’m just, I’m very concerned about this just being, so you know, this is a very large tower with a lot of water that’s been there forever, including the old animal tax paint factory, going into the ponds and a floodplain. Thank you, Councillor Hill here.

We did approve this application. Probably about a month ago, but I will go to staff to ask the question around the concerns of water. From what I understand reading the report, the remediation mostly will go to support the environment, but I’ll let staff make a comment. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Michael Thomas and sick here again. And you took the words right out of my mouth with regards to the approval of the development. In fact, this was just approved at the most recent council meeting. So the question before you isn’t the form of development, it’s the incentives.

But for this type of technical question, this is where I do rely on the applicant’s consultants to provide a technical answer to that question. So if I could ask the chair to acknowledge Mr. Knudsen for a response, I would appreciate that. Mr.

Knudsen, I hope you’re still here. I am Madam Chair, thank you very much. Go ahead. There’s a fairly quick answer to the question.

I posed this question to EXP a number of years ago. And EXP are the geotechnical consultants that have been involved with the property on behalf of my clients since 2012, excuse me. I was concerned about any capillary action that might happen from the old paint factory under the coves up to the property. And the answer was there’s absolutely no possible way.

The geotechnical, the hydrogeological water movement is against that flow. So to answer your question through the chair, there’s no issue at all. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hilliard for the question as well.

And with that, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to staff, this is the first time I’ve had experience at planning with this type of request. It’s a considerable amount of money.

But my understanding is that in a contaminated area, if this help wasn’t provided, it would, the site would just sit there. Is that a true risk in your opinion? Madam Chair, Michael Thomas in Secure again, that is definitely a risk. The whole point of these brownfield CIPs, why Councillor approved the whole program, was so that these sites can compete at a level playing field with greenfield sites.

As you can imagine, brownfield sites are at a significant cost disadvantage right from the get-go. And so this, the incentives are intended to bring the to a level playing field with greenfield sites. So I would agree with your statement. Yes, Councillor.

Thank you. Yeah, so, you know, I see the business case. We get our investment back through property taxes on this developed site, you know, between two or three years. I think that’s worthwhile to go through as opposed to having the site sit there unused and contaminated.

So this is a great way to clean up a site, but also to get housing going on there. Thank you. And with that, we can go to our screens. I’ll support you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We dealt with the number five. And with that, I will ask for adjournment. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Councillor Hill here, seconding. I guess can we raise our hands? All in favor, thank you committee members.

Have a nice evening.