November 22, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1 to 2.13 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   8th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-10-27 TFAC Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on October 27, 2021:

a)  the City BE REQUESTED to use the new Municipal Climate Lens tool to explore the implications of varying hydro lines in new developments or developments particularly as it relates to reducing the impact of severe storms on the electrical systems as well as on improving the ability to plant much larger trees along sidewalks in order to make walking a more attractive form of transportation; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   9th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-11-03 PEC ACE Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 9th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on November 3, 2021, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Parking Standards Review

2021-11-22 PEC SR Parking Standards Review - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Parking Standards Review Information Report appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021, which is the process to review and update the current City of London Parking requirements in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 BE RECEIVED and BE CIRCULATED for public review and feedback. (2021-T02)

Motion Passed

2.4   915 Upperpoint Avenue (H-9362)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 915 Upperpoint Avenue H-9362

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 915 Upperpoint Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 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 Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-54h-209R4-6(11)), a Holding Residential Special Provision R5 (hh-54h-209R5-7(9)), a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-54h-209R6-5(61)), and a Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (hh-54h-209R8-3(5))  Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R4 (R4-6(11)), a Residential Special Provision R5 (R5-7(9)), a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(61)), and a Residential Special Provision R8 (R8-3(5)) Zone.

Motion Passed

2.5   235 Kennington Way (H-9375)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 235 Kennington Avenue H-9375

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the northern portion of the property located at 235 Kennington Way, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5 Special Provisions and R6 Special Provision (hh-100h-198*R5-4(23)/R6-5(51)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provisions and R6 Special Provision (R5-4(23)/R6-5(51)) Zone.

Motion Passed

2.6   1790 Finley Crescent (P-9371)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 1790 Finley Crescent P-9371

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Kenmore Homes (London) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to exempt Block 100, Plan 33M-733 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.

Motion Passed

2.7   Summerside Subdivision Phase 18 - Special Provisions (39T-92020-18)

2021-11-22 PEC SR Summerside Phase 18 39T-92020

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

a)    the Special Provisions to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc., for the Summerside Subdivision, Phase 18 (39T-92020_18) appended to the staff report dated November 22, 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 November 22, 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 November 22, 2021 as Appendix “C”; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.8   1478 Westdel Bourne (H-9412)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 1478 Westdel Bourne H-9412

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Townline Orchard Property Limited, relating to lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-4) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (h-R1-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R4/R5/R6/R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-209-R4-6(11)/R5-7(9)/R6-5(61)/R8-3(5)) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-5) Zone, a Holding Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (h-54-h-209-R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R4/R5/R6/R8 Special Provision (h-54-h-209-R4-6(11)/R5-7(9)/R6-5(61)/R8-3(5)) Zone to remove the holding (h) provision. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.9   370 South Street - Heritage Designation - Health Services Building and War Memorial Children’s Hospital

2021-11-22 PEC SR 370 South Street Heritage Designation

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the designation of the property at 370 South Street, that the following actions be taken:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the staff report dated November 20, 2021 as Appendix D and Appendix E; and,

b)    should no objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 370 South Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D and Appendix E of this report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared; and,

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

2.10   466-468 Queen’s Avenue Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP21-076-L)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 466-468 Queens Avenue HAP21

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, seeking retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated properties at 466-468 Queens Avenue, in the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

a)   the existing wood windows on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained; and,

b)  the London Doorway on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

2.11   10 Bruce Street - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP21-073-L)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 10 Bruce Street HAP21-073

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, seeking approval for alterations to the porch of the heritage designated property at 10 Bruce Street, located within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED as submitted with the following terms and conditions:

a)  the porch be reconstructed using the salvaged brick and concrete block materials;

b)  the porch and railing system be reconstructed as previously constructed according to photographic documentation;

c) the new columns consist of concrete with fluting and ornamental capitals to be replicated in kind based on the porch’s previous construction;

d)   the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit to ensure the railing and columns are consistent with design of the previous porch;

e)  the proposed alterations to the porch be completed within six (6) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

f)  the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed. (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

2.12   1595 Capri Crescent (1600 Twilite Boulevard) (H-9389)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 1595 Capri Crescent (1600 Twilite Boulevard) H-9389

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxwood Developments, relating to the property located at 1595 Capri Crescent (1600 Twilite Boulevard), the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 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 Holding Residential R5 and R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R5-6/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R5 and R6 (R5-6/R6-5) Zone to remove the “h”, “h-54”, “h-71” and “h-100” holding provisions. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.13   2313 and 2373 Callingham Drive (P-8830)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 2373 Callingham Drive P-8830

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Town and Country Developments (2005) Inc., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to exempt Blocks 2 and 3 of Registered Plan 33M-664 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 13, for a period not exceeding six (6) months. (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3103 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road (Z-9383)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 3103 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road Z-9383

2021-11-22 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2831570 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3047 White Oak Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1/Residential R6 Special Provision Residential R8 Bonus (hh-100h-161h-227R1-10/R6-5(59)/R8-4(46)*B60) Zone;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with and will serve to implement the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which encourage infill and intensification and the provision of a range of housing types, and efficient use of existing infrastructure;

  •    the proposed residential uses and scale of development are consistent with the policies of the London Plan, the 1989 Official Plan, the Southwest Area Secondary Plan and the North Longwoods Area Plan policies; and,

  •    the subject lands are of a suitable size and shape to accommodate the development proposed. (2021-D09)

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 M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   City Wide - Encouraging the Growing of Food in Urban Areas (OZ-9332)

2021-11-22 PEC SR Encouraging the Growing of Food in the Urban Areas OZ-9332

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law relating to policies and regulations for the growing of food in urban areas:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new subsection in the Food Systems Chapter to allow for the growing of food in urban areas on lands, in greenhouses and shipping containers; and ADDING a new policy in the Our Tools part of the Plan to allow for a scoped site plan approval process for greenhouses; and

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan), by REVISING Section 4.26 (Uses Permitted in All Zones) to include Urban Agriculture and ADDING a new Section 4.38 (Urban Agriculture) to provide regulations for greenhouses and shipping containers used for growing of food;

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

  • the staff presentation;

  • a communication dated November 18, 2021, from J. Cordes, Chair, Middlesex London Food Policy Council; and,

  • a communication dated November 17, 2021, from Members of the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee - 2021;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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

  •    the recommended amendments to the London Plan and Zoning By-law Z.-1 are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020);

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with three of Councils goals in the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendments to the London Plan and Zoning By-law provides more opportunities to allow for the growing of food within the City’s Urban Growth boundary (UGB). (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 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. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   99 Southdale Road West (Z-9162)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 99 Southdale Road West - Z-9162

2021-11-22 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Southdale West Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 99 Southdale Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) and Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Zone (R9-5(_) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone;

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

i)   ensure that the development provides adequately sized and located enhanced outdoor amenity and recreation area(s) to support healthy and livable environment for the number of residents. This can be achieved by providing a central amenity space and smaller compatible amenity areas serving individual buildings;

ii)   provide for a safe network of internal streets with convenient and direct pedestrian connections throughout the site (North- South and East- West) connecting building entrances, amenity areas, parking spaces, open spaces and the city sidewalk along Southdale Road East;

iii)  ensure an active building façade along Southdale Road by including principal building entrance(s), lobbies, common amenity areas and street-oriented residential units with front porches/courtyards and individual unit entrances connected to the public sidewalk along that frontage. Provide direct walkway connections from ground floor units to the sidewalk to create a pedestrian scale rhythm and activation;

iv)  explore opportunities to minimize the visual impact of surface parking by reducing the expanse of surface parking and drive aisles to the required minimum and accommodate majority of the parking underground to provide adequate amenity and recreational areas and in turn reduce the heat island effect;

v)  ensure the design of the proposed building(s) offer variation in appearance and massing to add character throughout the development and promote wayfinding;

vi)  ensure an EMP (Environmental Management Plan) is completed through the site approval process; and,

vii)  consider the comments made at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Community of London and Vicinity;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment to Zoning By-law Z.-1 is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 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, which contemplates a range of residential uses including stacked townhouses, fourplexes, and low-rise apartments within the Neighbourhoods Place Type where the property has frontage on a Civic Boulevard;

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan including, but not limited to the Policies for the Multi-Family Medium Density Residential and Open Space designations. The recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is at the upper range of the maximum density for residential intensification within the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation but still ensures the nature of development is suitable for the site and the immediate neighbourhood. The recommended amendment would help to reach the objective of supplying housing choices and options for all residents;

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. The subject lands represent an appropriate location for residential intensification, along a higher-order street at the fringe of a developing neighbourhood, and the recommended amendment would permit development at a magnitude that is suitable for the site and the adjacent neighbourhood; and,

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street (OZ-9418)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street OZ-9418

2021-11-22 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Vision SoHo Alliance, relating to the properties located at 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend the 1989 Official Plan, to add policies to Section 19.15.4 Vacant Land Condominiums;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend The London Plan, 2016 to add policies to Policy 1709 Vacant Land Condominiums;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan to change the designation of a portion of the subject the subject lands FROM a Low-Rise Residential designation TO a Mid-Rise Residential designation and amend policies pertaining to the Mid-Rise Residential designation and The Four Corners designation;

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 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 a portion of the subject lands FROM R8 Special Provision (hh-5 R8-4(56) Zone; Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-5 R8-4(57); and, a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-5R8-4(58)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-5R4-6(13)/R8-4(59)) Zone, with amendments to the associated special provisions of the Residential R8-4 zones applicable to the subject lands;

e)    the requested amendment to the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan to remove policy from 20.6.4.1(iii) regarding commercial at the ground floor BE REFUSED given the goals and objectives for the designation within the secondary plan;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020 by providing a mix of residential uses including affordable housing in an appropriate location and at a time of defined need;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi Family High Density Residential designation which applies to the subject lands;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place type which applies to the subject lands;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the policies of the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the amendment to the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan recommended for refusal is recommended as such because it is not consistent with the vision for the area set out within the objectives of the plan. (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.5   370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street (SPA21-081)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street SPA21-081

2021-11-22 Public Comments 3.5

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Vision SoHo Alliance, relating to the property located at 370 South Street and 124 Colborne Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of five new apartment buildings and the redevelopment of two existing buildings on the subject lands; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council has no issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

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

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which directs development to designated growth areas and that development be adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the applicable policies of The London Plan with the exception of the Vacant Land Condominium policies subject of the application OZ-9418;

  •    the proposed Site Plan is in conformity with the applicable policies of the Official Plan (1989) with the exception of the Vacant Land Condominium policies subject of the application OZ-9418;

  •    the proposed Site Plan is in conformity with the policies of the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan (2014) with the exception of the designation and design policies subject of the application OZ-9418;

  •    the proposed Site Plan will conform to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law subject to the approval of the requested Zoning By-law amendment under consideration as OZ-9418; and,

  •    with the exception of minor drawing amendments required, the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Site Plan Control By-law.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.6   3095 & 3105 Bostwick Road (39T-21502 & Z-9322)

2021-11-22 PEC SR 3095 3105 Bostwick Road 39T-21502 Z-9322

2021-11-22 Public Comments 3.6

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 7, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR3 Zone TO a Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (hR2-3(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (hh-R2-3(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (hh-198*h-*R4-4(2)) Zone; an Open Space OS1 Zone, and an Urban Reserve UR3 Zone;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Southside Construction Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road; and,

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Southside Construction Management Ltd., prepared by Zelinka Priamo (Project No. SPE/LON/12-02), certified by Jason Wilband O.L.S., dated November 11, 2021, as red-line revised, which shows a total of 168 single detached residential lots, three (3) street townhouse residential blocks, three (3) park blocks, two (2) urban reserve blocks, three (3) future road block served by the extensions of Frontier Avenue, Regiment Road, Raleigh Boulevard and four (4) new local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions appended in the staff report dated November 22, 2021 as Appendix “B”;

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

-the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, 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 draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

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

-the proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; and the Open Space and Environmental Review designations. The proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning conforms to the vision for the North Talbot Neighbourhood that new development will reflect the existing character of the neighbourhood, provide a walkable environment with a pedestrian scale, and incorporate street-oriented development on public right-of-ways.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   1453-1459 Oxford Street East and 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue

2021-11-22 PEC SR 1453-1459 Oxford Street East and 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue OZ-9269

2021-11-22 Public Comments 3.7

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Red Maple Properties, relating to the property located at 1453-1459 Oxford Street East and 648-656 Ayreswood Avenue:

a)    the request to amend The London Plan by ADDING a new policy the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of The London Plan, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available.

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016), including, but not limited to, the Key Directions, City Design, Intensity and Form policies of the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSA) policies, and Near Campus Neighbourhoods policies.

iii)    the existing sanitary sewer servicing the site does not have sufficient capacity to support the proposed density.

b)    the request to amend the Official Plan for the City of London (1989) to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan (1989), including, but not limited to, the Permitted Uses, Density and Scale, Bonusing, Residential Intensification, Urban Design, and Policies for Near Campus Neighbourhoods;

iii)    the proposed development represents an over-intensification of the site and does not satisfy the criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis;

iv)    the existing sanitary sewer servicing the site does not have sufficient capacity to support the proposed density.

c)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone and Residential R1/Office Conversion (R1-6/OC4) Zone TO a Residential R9 Bonus/Neighbourhood Shopping Area (R9-7B-_H77/NSA3) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the proposed development is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available;

ii)    the proposed development does not conform to The London Plan (2016) as the requested Specific Policy is not recommended for approval;

iii)    the proposed development does not conform to the Official Plan (1989) as the requested Multi-Family, High Density Residential designation is not recommended for approval;

iv)    the proposed development and requested zoning represent an over-intensification of the site and do not satisfy the criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis;

v)    the existing sanitary sewer servicing the site does not have sufficient capacity to support the proposed density.

vi)    the facilities, services, and matters identified through the proposed bonus zone are not commensurate for the requested height and density;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated November 16, 2021, from P. Lombardi, Partner, Siskinds; and,

  •    a communication from C. Kulchycki and H. Froussios, Senior Planners, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., and P. Champagne, Owner, Red Maple Properties;

 

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Motion to refer the application back to the Civic Administration.

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the application by Red Maple Properties, relating to the properties located at 1453 to 1459 Oxford Street East and 648 to 656 Ayerswood Avenue BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to undertake the following actions and to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to:

a)  work with the applicant to ensure the appropriate framework is in place for the provision of affordable housing units at 70% of the average market rate for fifty years;

b) work with the applicant to determine options to resolve the sanitary sewer capacity issues; and,

c)  work with the applicant to revise the application to consolidate the subject properties as being within the Rapid Transit Corridor; it being noted that this is notwithstanding the 100 meter policy guideline adjacent to a Rapid Transit Station, for the purpose of developing scale, density and form suitable to such locations;

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   11th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-11-10 LACH Report

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on November 10, 2021:

a)    the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) 2022 membership with the Community Heritage Ontario BE APPROVED; it being noted that the LACH has sufficient funds in its 2021 Budget to cover the $75.00 renewal fee;

b)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking approval for alterations to the porch of the heritage designated property located at 10 Bruce Street, located within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED, as submitted, with the following terms and conditions:

  •    the porch be reconstructed using the salvaged brick and concrete block materials;

  •    the porch and railing system be reconstructed as previously constructed according to photographic documentation;

  •    the new columns consist of concrete with fluting and ornamental capitals to be replicated in kind based on the porch’s previous construction;

  •    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit to ensure the railing and columns are consistent with design of the previous porch;

  •    the proposed alterations to the porch be completed within six (6) months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

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

c)    the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, seeking retroactive approval for alterations to the heritage designated properties located at 466-468 Queens Avenue, in the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

  •    the existing wood windows on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained; and,

  •    the London Doorway on the 466 Queens Avenue portion of the property be retained;

d)    on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated November 10, 2021, related to the Designation of the Health Services Building and War Memorial Children’s Hospital, located at 370 South Street, under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act:

i)    notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c.O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the above-noted property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D and Appendix E of the above-noted report; and,

ii)    should no objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 370 South Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D and Appendix E of the above-noted report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and,

it being noted that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage encourages that effort be put into locating and using the original memorial plaque, as appended to the above-noted staff report in Appendix C, in the development of the property; and,

e)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1 and 4.4, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 8th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2021-11-18 EEPAC Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 18, 2021:

a)    S. Levin, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC) BE DIRECTED to speak on behalf of the EEPAC at the Planning and Environment Committee public participation meeting relating to Environmental Management Guidelines; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Vote:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to change the order of business to hear the delegation by S. Levin, Chair, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:56 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 6 minutes)

Can you hear me, Justin? Yes, we can hear you in chambers, thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 17th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. I would first like to welcome our new counselor for Ward 6, counselor, Marianne Hamou.

Welcome. 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 meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca. So moving on to through the agenda, I’m going to ask, are there any disclosures of tonight and first seen none? I’m going to move on to the consent items, and I would like to look to the committee if there’s any consent items that they would like to pull or make comments on. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If we were not seeing anyone pulling anything, I’ll move the consent agenda, but I do have multiple items that I’d like to make some comments on. Okay, so we have Councillor Lewis to move and Councillor Layman as a seconder. And with that, I would like to go to the committee.

Councillor Lewis for comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I will start with perhaps what might be the easiest one for comments on first, which is item two, two, 10. That’s the 466 and 468 Queen’s Ave heritage alteration permit.

While I’m supportive of that, some of the comments from staff in the report on this did lead to a couple of questions that through you, I’d like to direct to them. And the report references restoring heritage assets as much as possible with original materials and consistent with the way that it existed prior to the restoration. But I noted on this one that the applicant had referenced considerable deterioration around the windows and the windows seals. And cognizant of the fact that these older homes, these heritage properties are not necessarily what we would consider energy efficient today.

And as much as we often talk about the climate change emergency when it relates to transportation issues, the second biggest contributor to GHGs in the city of London is residential homes through our heating and cooling costs and powering those homes. And so through you, I’m wondering if staff also apply any aspect of the climate change lens to heritage alteration permits when the applicant is considering alternate materials to improve a building’s efficiency, obviously knowing that we want to maintain the look but is consideration given to the benefit of modernizing materials in some of these restorations? Thank you for that, Councillor Lewis. I’ll go to staff.

I don’t know if to Daniel or if there’s someone here that could answer the question regarding. Sorry, this is Michael Grebwal heritage planner. I’m happy to feel the question. Go ahead.

So through the chair, thank you very much for the question, short answers. Yes, we do consider the bigger concept of energy efficiency when looking at applications and climate change and one of the reasons that we specifically look at materials is to ensure that the materials that are being used or proposed are compatible with the heritage character and heritage attributes of a property and a heritage conservation district but then related to energy efficiency are they best for for the long-term conservation of a property as well. So specifically in an instance like windows repairing and conserving windows is usually a preferable approach in that they retain the materials that can be retained on the property for hundreds of years. So an existing window can be restored and retained on properties for hundreds of years.

There have been studies that also show that properly fitted storm windows, things like that minor alterations perform just as efficient as new materials. And then one of the other things we look at is the long-term life cycle of material as well. So specifically things like vinyl that have a life cycle of maybe 15 to 20 years and ultimately end up in the landfill. We look at whether that is best as well for the heritage property as well.

So short answer is yes, it’s something we consider. Councillor Lewis. Great, I appreciate that background. It’s very good to know that those options are considered through the process.

I did also want to very briefly comment on 2.9 and it’s really just a comment. I’m really happy to see the heritage designation coming forward for the War Memorial Children’s Hospital and the Health Services Building. I think that this is a really good news story all the way around where I hope that at the end of the day this will have unanimous support. The applicant is supportive, the city’s supportive and I hope the council will support that as well.

The final item that I wanted to comment on, Madam Chair, is 2.3, the Parking Standards Review. And I think that this one is really important to comment on and I think it’s very important that we are going out for some public consultation on this. I am very interested to see how the public feels about perhaps having parking maximums in certain uses. I think that parking minimums in terms of residential uses are still going to have some necessity to us.

But I also like the fact that there’s a hybrid model in there as well where we can have a little bit of both. I’m mindful of the fact that later on in the agenda we’re going to be talking about an application where there’s a parking reduction in a case where I think it makes a whole lot of sense based on the target demographics and the location. But we’ve got those standards in place right now that do create, I don’t want to say a barrier, but do put our staff in a position of having to say they can’t necessarily support the reduction. But when we look at it through the lens of the target demographics and what’s happening on that site, I think it’s easier for us to put our own community lenses on and see where there’s a benefit to some of that.

But I think we can do much more around this and I’m really encouraged. I know other cities in Canada have already undertaken this. I’m glad we’re doing that too. And I’m looking forward to really good discussion because I think that there’s benefits to all the approaches.

And I think that finding an approach that’s going to be right for the citizens and the businesses of London is something that has to come through a London discussion. So looking forward to having that. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Are there any other questions from committee?

Councillor Layton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just want to speak to 2.3 as well. As I said, when we are addressing our master accommodation plan, COVID has dramatically affected how society works.

And I don’t think we know yet where this is going to shake out once we get out of the COVID time, if we ever do. Do we continue work remotely or do we all go back to work or is there some hybrid of that? So I caution against haste here until we kind of see how this is going to shake out. There’s going to be dramatic effects.

It already has been on mass transit. How that will change, we don’t know. Then you throw in technological change such as electric cars, autonomous cars, ride sharing, et cetera. I think the next 20 years are going to be very dynamic in how we get around.

And I think to make substantial change in policy before we have a good indication of where that goes, I think would be a mistake. It’s good to consult with the public right now. I think that’s an excellent idea to see where people are thinking. It’s a terrific discussion to start.

But again, as with the master combination plan, I think we’d be well advised to not rush until we have a better grip on understanding and how society is going to permanently change from these COVID times. Thank you. I’d like to go to Councillor Hillier. Thank you very much.

Just a comment and question for staff on 2.7, the summer side of subdivision phase 18 special provisions. In those provisions, they’re eliminating the cul-de-sacs or courts. And I’m noticing that’s going forward in the rest of the project. Is this a city-wide standard that we’re eliminating cul-de-sacs and courts or is it just into this project?

If I can go to staff about the cul-de-sacs at this subdivision? Through you Madam Chair, it’s Bruce Cage. Yes, absolutely. Through our subdivision design and through our requirements, we are trying to remove all cul-de-sacs.

So we would limit the number of cul-de-sacs that are within the city. And that is sort of a city-wide approach. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Hillier.

And if I’ll go to the committee, I see no other comments. Yes. So I just wanted to advise item 2.9 370 South Street. The London Advisory Committee on Heritage has made a recommendation.

It’s their clause 4.3. Item 2.10 466 468 Queens Avenue. Again, London Advisory Committee on Heritage, it’s their recommendation 4.2, 10 Bruce Street 2.11. London Advisory Committee on Heritage recommendation is 4.1.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. And with that, if the committee will allow me to make a brief comment, and this is on 2.7, which is the Somerset subdivision phase 18, which we just received a comment from the Councillor. And if I may go to staff, one of the things I’ve been noticing, and it is in this subdivision agreement, I’ve noticed how we sort of from time to time XR proposed school sites. And I know school sites are a big conversation in the community at the moment.

And I would like to ask staff, if they can more or less comment on this subdivision, why it is crossed out and are there lands available, but what is the municipal process when it comes to allowing for school sites in our subdivisions? I can go to staff. Mr. Madam Chair, it’s Bruce Page again.

The, with regards to 2.7, the crossing out is that through the draft approval process for the entire plan of subdivision, there were a number of school sites located. However, in this phase of development, there were no school blocks available. So it was simply just crossed out that that condition wouldn’t be applicable to this phase of subdivision. Typically, and I think Mr.

Felberg has some additional comments, but typically we identify school block sites within the overall subdivision. And the school board has an opportunity, a three year opportunity to work with the developer to acquire those lands. But Mr. Felberg can discuss that a little more.

Thank you, Mr. Page and to you, Madam Chair. So recognizing that school blocks are an important element of a new community, we’ve actually started a working group with the four school boards in town. So the French Catholic, the Catholic, the French board and Thames Valley district school board.

And the goal is to meet at least twice a year to ensure that both the city and the school boards understand different applications that are coming forward. We’ve also suggested to them that if they were to participate more actively in our GMIS program, they might be able to project out where there are proposed developments in the future. And they could start anticipating where they might need future school blocks in new development. Thank you, Mr.

Page and Mr. Felberg for that information. I know there is a, we receive many questions about school sites as we develop and put all these homes in. And I really appreciate that there’s ongoing work with these working groups that work with the community and the school board.

So thank you for that information. And with that, we can, oh, Councillor Hillier. Just to let everyone know, if you’re looking at the map on page 84, there is a brand new school opening in the fall of next year, right beside Carol Park. Thank you for that.

And with that, we can vote. Mayor Holder. Yay. Am I yay?

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, committee members for your comments and moving on to our scheduled items. I would like to let the committee know that we have a change in our agenda. On the added agenda, 5.1, there is a added delegation from Sandy Levin, Chair of Environmental and Ecological Planning and Advisory Committee.

We will be moving that up just after 3.3, which is around the 430 mark. So I just want to let everyone know about that. So moving on to the next, the scheduled items, 3.1, which is a PPM, that’s be heard before. Four, three, one, oh, three, petty road and three, oh, four, seven, wide oak road, I am looking for someone to open up the PPM, Councillor.

Louis, seconded by Councillor Helleyer. And if we can vote on opening up the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. This is a zoning application, committee members.

Do you, I’m looking for a motion? Or, sorry, is there anyone here from the, that would like to speak to this application, just getting too far ahead of myself. I do apologize. The applicant is here, if there’s anyone that would like to speak to this application, please come forward.

Chair Aloud’s got Allen into the meeting and he’s speaking on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Allen, you have up to five minutes. Welcome.

Chair Allen, can you hear us? Yes, it’s a council. My apologies, I was having some difficulties. I didn’t realize I was caught anywhere.

Yes, you can, the chair has indicated you can go ahead and you have up to five minutes, Mr. Allen. We can hear you quite clearly. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Quickly, my name is Scott Allen. With MHBC planning, we’re acting on behalf of the applicant. And with me today is Muhammad Abu-Hajar, who is also available to respond to questions. At this time, we’d simply like to express our support for the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report, as prepared by Mr.

McSula. In particular, we agree that the conclusion, said at the report that the multi-unit residential is only proposed for these lands, consistent with the political planning policies compatible with local development, context, more encourage greater housing, choice in the community. Particularly as these lands will be consolidated with the adjacent property, 3103 White Oak Road to create a consolidated cluster townhouse project. The findings of the staff report are reflective of the planning, our plan, just a case report.

And at this point, we also like to thank the city staff for their attention to this application. And finally, Madam Chair, with approval of this proposed rezoning, the applicant tends to advance site plan approval submission shortly and is hoping to initiate project construction this spring. Thank you for consideration. We’ll gladly answer any questions any members may have.

Thank you, Mr. Allen, for being here. And I’d like to go to the public and ask them if there’s any one here that would like to speak to this application, please come forward. I see no one else.

I look to the committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Hameu, seconded by Councillor Lehmer. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. With that, I’d like to go to the committee members looking for a motion, comments.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation. And I’m looking for a seconder.

Councillor Hameu is seconding that. And if I may, from the chair, committee members, just make a quick brief comment. I’m pleased to see a number of these townhouses coming forward high quality as well. And very supportive of this application.

And with that, we can vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Public participation meeting, which is 3.2, and it is public participation meeting regarding of recommendation four, encouraging the growing of food in urban areas, looking to open the PPM. Councillor Lehmer, seconded by Councillor Hillyer.

If we can vote to open up the PPM. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And with that, I will go to staff. I know there’s gonna be a presentation, and I will go to Mr.

Parker. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. This is a review that was initiated as part of a couple of items on our work program to implement the urban agriculture strategy. And also as a result of a food bank inquiry and request to council in 2020.

If you recall, urban agriculture is the practice of growing food within the city’s urban growth boundary as opposed to outside the urban growth boundary, which is considered rural agriculture. In November of 2017, council approved the urban agriculture strategy, which involves a number of activities, including production processing distribution, and is normally led by the urban agriculture community with city support and agency support. As I said, the review process was started from a letter from the London Food Bank in August of 2020, regarding a greenhouse that wanted to construct on their property in South London. This prompted a council direction to review the urban agriculture policies and regulations, because there were a number of issues raised with being able to build a greenhouse on the property and actually grow food.

The city initiated the London Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and also at the same time, reviewed the current site plan process. John Fleming, the former director of planning for the city, acted on behalf of the food bank. And in the initial stages, prepared a background study with draft London Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for consideration on June of 2021 at that background study, plus Mr. Fleming’s draft amendments, plus a cover report from staff were presented to PEC, and we were given direction to circulate it for comments.

As part of the review process, we met with a number of urban agriculture groups, including the Urban Agriculture Steering Committee, Friends of Urban Agriculture, Middlesex London Food Policy Council, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee. And we also met with a number of internal staff departments who were in charge of Zoning By-laws and site plan processes and so on and so forth. And we had a couple of different meetings and continued dialogue with those groups throughout the process. At the end of the process, there’s three main recommended amendment areas that we are proposing.

One, our amendments to permit the growing of food more broadly across the city within the urban growth boundary. Amendments to permit greenhouses in association with urban agriculture, and amendments to permit shipping containers used for growing of food in association with urban agriculture. In regards to the specific amendments we’re proposing tonight, in terms of London Plan amendments, we’re recommending a new section be added to the London Plan in the food systems chapter to allow the growing of food more broadly, and also to allow the growing of food specifically in greenhouses and shipping containers. We’re allowing for greenhouses and urban areas to be exempt from site plan approval where there are no anticipated impacts on adjacent properties, and also to allow a scope site plan approval process to be applied for urban agriculture.

A scope site plan process is sort of a weeded down site plan approval process, focusing only on the issues that are relevant to the specific property. And lastly, the last London Plan amendment is to allow for shipping containers to be used for urban agriculture, subject to site plan approval, and a zoning bylaw amendment in residential. In terms of zoning bylaw amendments, we’re adding urban agriculture is permitted use in most zones inside the urban growth boundary. Urban agriculture is limited to growing, harvesting, cleaning, packaging, and storing of the food that is growing on the site.

We’re adding a new definition and regulations for greenhouses, indicating that greenhouses can’t be permitted in association only with urban agriculture, but not to be permitted in the front or exterior side yet of a property, and only 50% of the floor areas counted towards the maximum lot coverage, which means you can have a larger greenhouse for an accessory building. And we’re also adding new regulations for shipping containers used for the growing of food. Shipping containers may be permitted in association with urban agriculture, except in residential zones. And again, they’re not permitted in the front or exterior side yard.

In terms of the recommendation rationale, they both London plan and zoning bylaw amendments are consistent with provincial policy statement in 2020. They’re consistent with three of council’s goals, 2019 strategic plan. The amendments will work to where achieving the goals and objectives of the urban agriculture strategy which was council approved in November of 2017. And it also provides more opportunities to allow for the growing of food within the city’s urban growth boundary.

Thank you. Questions, I’d be happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Parker.

I’d like to ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. I hear and see none. So I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hellier.

Closing the vote, the motion carries by to zero. I’d like to go to the committee for any comments, questions, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you to our staff. Well, I’m generally supportive of what we have here before us today.

I’m wondering if we could hear a little more of a technical answer on the rationale in terms of the definition and regulations for greenhouses. Why is the recommendation that only 50% of the floor area counts towards maximum lot coverage? If staff can expand on that. ‘Cause I do have concerns that we could end up with very large greenhouses if we’re only counting half their floor space as lot coverage.

Okay. Yes, yes to the chair. We looked at ways, this is still all controlled by the total coverage that you’re allowed on a lot of accessory buildings. Greenhouses are being treated as accessory buildings.

So if you have a garage and you have a shed, it’s limited by that, by the number of buildings you have on the property, you’re still limited to 10%. And in this particular case, you can go up to 15% with a greenhouse. So there are limits on the amount of coverage that you can have for accessory buildings. We just thought that it was advantageous to allow something a little larger for a greenhouse if somebody chooses not have a shed or a garage on the property.

So there is a little bit of flexibility built in so that you could have larger greenhouses. And so just to follow up on that, through you, Madam Chair. And my primary concern is in residential areas where we’re likely to see the greatest impact on the neighbors. Could staff just for the sake of the public and those who may not be aware indicate what the maximum lot coverage is for a residential property?

Done. Through the chair, this is Justin Adema, manager of long-range planning. So currently in the zoning by, there’s a 10% lot coverage cap for accessory buildings. And that’s the only regulation where this provision would apply.

So essentially, if there are no other accessory buildings, that 10% cap could increase up to 20%. So it would still be limited to a maximum of 20% coverage of the lot. Other regulations vary depending on the zone for overall coverage, but that requirement that applies to accessory buildings is 10% and by applying a 50% ratio of the greenhouse, it could theoretically increase up to 20%. If there’s no other accessory buildings.

Thank you for that, Mr. Adema. And I think that goes a long way to assuring a couple of comments that I heard from the community about how big these things could get when we were only counting half to know that it’s still only 20% total for the accessory structure, even if it’s purely a greenhouse. I think that goes a long way to answering those concerns.

So I appreciate that. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I would like to go to Councillor Hamou. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And through you, the question I have is how many applications for these urban greenhouses have we had thus far, Steph? Mr. Chair, I’m not sure we’ve had any applications for greenhouses. Typically, when they’re less than 10% or 10 square meters, there’s no application required.

I can’t recall if they’re ever being an application for greenhouses, but I stand to be. That’s where I have a follow-up question. When this was first being proposed, was this done in concert with any other organizationers? Was this the London Food Bank acting on their own?

Through the chairs, this is just an Adema again. So this review was really initiated as a result of the urban agriculture strategy, which was an effort that was undertaken and finished in 2017 that looked very broadly at agriculture and growing food within the urban area and implemented some objectives and actions in order to support those types of activities. So through that strategy, some actions were identified, including creating a more supportive policy and regulatory framework. So we had that initiative already in place.

It was through the application that was submitted by the Food Bank that it just sort of pushed this to the forefront and elevated it in terms of priority and got this review going maybe a little sooner than it would have otherwise, but it was already on the books as a project in order to be undertaken as a result of that urban agriculture strategy. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hamou. Are there any other questions from the committee?

Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you to staff. See, desire here to have a capability of people to grow food for their own use or for industrialization where they would sell food to farmers markets or nearby stores, et cetera. Councillor Lehman, just so I understand the question, if you could say ask that question one more time.

Yeah, I’m just trying to understand the motivation behind making this change is that to have people grow food for themselves or to grow food to sell or commercial or business to farmers markets, et cetera, stores and whatnot. I’m just trying to understand why this is needed. Thank you for that clarification. If I could go to staff.

Through the chair, the amendments don’t specify what should happen to the food after it’s grown. The examples that we’ve seen recently, including the food bank and the urban farm we’ve seen recently in the city of Northern Avenue. Both include elements of supporting charities such as the food bank, but it wouldn’t be limited to that. Certainly it would be possible to sell food grown in an urban agriculture environment.

Absolutely. - Thank you. What about growing cannabis? Through the chair, growing cannabis is specifically excluded from this review.

So the zoning definition specifically states that urban agriculture does not include growing cannabis because that’s covered through other definitions and other regulations. Thank you, again, through you, Madam Chair. My concern is the unintended consequences. If this is being done to have a business and get up to kind of a scale, the impact in the neighbors with truck deliveries, staff showing up, proper storage of items used in the process, fertilizer, et cetera, and waste materials.

Can you tell me what’s the difference, what will be the difference? If this is approved, what will be the difference in the process that we currently have if someone wanted to have a greenhouse on their property? The difference in the process, I understand, Councillor Layman. Correct, so I’ll maybe clarify.

A while back, we approved having some storage semi-trailer units in a property near the train tracks there to grow food items. And that process seemed to work. And I’m just trying to understand what the difference would be going forward if this was approved, what the difference would be to having, well, let’s say that site approved or a greenhouse approved, that would be different than what we had just got through. Thank you for that, like to go to staff.

Through the chair, I think the main difference would be what’s permitted currently in zoning and what’s not. So in that example, it was required that the applicant submitted both the zoning by-law amendment application as well as a site plan application under the new regulations. And I can’t speak specifically to that example, but it would be possible to do an urban agriculture use similar to that as of right under the zoning by-law. So permitted already under the zoning by-law.

And which would remove that, tap in the process and make it a little bit more easier and accessible to different groups in order to achieve that type of use. Would such a project still have to go to council for approval? Through the chair, it may not if it’s permitted by zoning. It may just require a site plan application, which would not necessarily go before council.

Again, through you, Madam Chair, thank you for this time. And who would approve that site plan application? The site plan approval authority for the city, which is a staff delegation unless specifically requiring public site plan approval. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Layman. I’d like to go to Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, Chair. I’m comfortable supporting staff recommendation.

I appreciate the work that’s been done on this. My primary interest is more around food bank and other organizations that do use this for community, for community supports in terms of food growing, but we also know that this is tend to be for residential use, but I think the limits on this makes me so I’m prepared when it comes to go ahead with this and appreciate staff’s efforts that we’re doing. Thank you, Mayor. And I see Councillor van Host has his hand up.

Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’ll also extend my gratitude to staff for moving forward with the urban agriculture plan. I think we’ve got some very interesting developments there, greenhouse is a very significant one.

The shipping containers is more of a new idea, but that’s also great here. I know there’ve been people in the past looking to create a greenhouse because they wanted to grow seedlings for not bearing trees. And that became problematic because of our zoning bylaws. So I think this is making a lot of great things possible that will lead to a larger sense of food security in the city.

And we, I think that this point in this early millennium, we see the kinds of things that can go wrongs, pandemics and supply chain problems just out west with the transportation routes being cut off. It’s very possible that food will become a challenge for people to get. And so having these kinds of food security measures in place is I think a very good thing. And it also creates a greater sense of food independence for any particular community.

So I think we can be leaders in that way. In as much as London is leaders in many, many ways, I think it’s great that we’re pushing this forward because other other communities will look to this and they’ll see what we’ve done and be able to do the same based on our successes. I didn’t know that in the recent approval that was given about the shipping containers, there was a question about stacking them. And so I might go through you to our staff to see if there’s a provision for that here.

Although we know that they can’t be in the front yard or in the exposed side yard. They should be in the back. However, if they’re stacked, that makes them more visible. Is there some provision in there or some discussion about that in here or would that be a site plan thing?

I can go to staff. Through the chair, there is height limits in the existing zoning by-law that would prevent the stacking of shipping containers one on top of the other. That’s what that holds. Okay, thank you.

That was well addressed. And in terms of concern about the size of the, of the greenhouses that could be put in as right, looking on page 207 seems to me if it’s less, if it’s less than 200 meters squared, then that’s… Then that would be exempt from site plan approval and things over that would, there would have to be some type of site plan. Is that correct?

The way the policy and regulations are written, it’s up to a site plan as to whether a scoped process is appropriate or not, even under 200 square meters. There’s some evaluation done when the application comes in to see if there’s, or the inquiry comes in. There’s some evaluation to determine whether either a full site plan process or a scoped site plan process is needed. Okay, if I may, Madam Chair, really like the idea of the scoped process, having that as an option, I think streamlines much for us and maybe there’s other things that that will apply to in the future as well, but I think that’s a great idea.

And I would also like to ask this question, if somebody were to build right now or previously before this had wanted to build a greenhouse, the size of a shed, would that have been possible? Through the chair, under the accessory building regulations, as Mr. Adam appointed out, you’re allowed to build up to 10 square meters without a building permit. So if you went above the 10 square meters, you would may require a building permit, but unless you exceed the 10% of a lot area for your accessory buildings, I don’t think anything further would have been required.

Okay, so it’s possible, but that’s maybe 10 foot by 10 foot structure. And we can see that somebody who’s making a greenhouse might want something bigger than that. And so I think this is great. And I also hope that people take this on as kind of a hobby and then use their product produce to help out places like our food bank, which of course does a great job.

So thank you very much for the work and to the committee for showing your support for this item. I think it’s quite an exciting and the urban agriculture strategy was something very innovative for London. And it’s nice to see that moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Van Halst. You know, further comments if the committee will allow me just to make my comments here from the chair. And I do appreciate everyone’s questions and comments and very supportive of this recommendation. I do believe, I still recall when the food bank came to us asking for a permit.

And it was really revealed at that time that we should review and understand where we go forward when it comes to growing urban areas. And if anything, the importance of food security through the challenges that we’ve had with this pandemic is really underlined that as well. And I will be supporting adding the new policies in our tools. This is, these are the changes that we’ll be making to the London Plan and the Zoning Amendment to in particular when it comes to the scope site plan, approval process, as well as revising the new section to provide regulations for greenhouses and shipping containers for growing food.

I want to thank, really, the food bank for coming forward to originally to get us going and the work that Mr. John Fleming has done on their behalf as well as planning staff and other divisions and departments within the city that needed to get this work done. And as you can see, the recommendation is before us. And with that, I’ll go to a vote.

Are there any further comments? I see none. Oh, sorry. Councillor Lewis and seconded by Councillor Humu.

Chair votes, yes, I’m gonna come up. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And moving on to our next participation meeting, which is 3.3 and this is a public participation meeting for 99 Southdale Road West, looking for a mover. To open up the PPM.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by the mayor. Good room. There you go. We’ll just wait a moment as we start to open it up.

I’ll vote yes, Chair, if there was a vote there, I didn’t see it. Was Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Humu. The mayor, sorry, I think that was the previous one. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

With that, I understand we have a staff presentation. Yes, we do, thank you, Madam Chair. The subject site is located at 99 Southdale Road West. Location is on the south side of Southdale Road West, west of Notre Dame Drive and east of Worncliffe Road, south.

South West Road, Southdale Road is a material road and is classified as Pacific Boulevard in the London Plan. The site is approximately 7.6 hectares in size with approximate frontage of 315 meters along Southdale Road and is currently undeveloped. Looking at slide three, you’ll notice that there’s an existing wooded area that covers a portion of the subject lands with the remainder being an open field. Through a board hearing years ago, the wooded area was deemed non-significant.

So I just wanted to point that out. Going on to slide four, you’ll notice some photos of the surrounding uses in the area. We have directly to the west, we have the Hellenic Center further to the west. We have lands that are designated residential and some have been developed as townhomes to the north.

There’s a mix of medium density and low density residential that’s been developed to the east and south. We have the auto-oriented commercial corridor with a lot of auto sales and service establishments. So the proposal today being brought forward is a request to amend the zoning by-law to change the zoning from an urban reserve and environmental review to a residential R9 special provision and open space zoning. They have requested some special provisions to establish the minimum front yard setback of six alongside the minimum rear yard of six east interior side yard of 12 and a west interior side yard of 6.5 with a maximum height of 29.5.

And looking at the proposal on slide six, it’s just showing kind of an aerial view of how the buildings will be laid out. Moving on, we see front rendering for slide seven. We see a front rendering of the proposed buildings from Southdale. Slide eight is more of an external view of kind of the middle of the site, kind of how it looks if standing in the middle.

So just looking, a quick overview of the policies, staff have reviewed all the relevant policies and they have come to recommend the application on the basis that the provincial policy statement encourages this type of development. The recommended amendment conforms to the enforce policies of the London plan. Sometime we go on to look at that the recommended amendment conforms to the enforce policies of the 1889 official plan. It does permit a development that is an intensity, that is an upper range of the maximum density.

In the multifamily medium, but ensures the nature of development is suitable for the site in the immediate neighborhood. And with regards to the Southwest area plan, the subject developments represents an appropriate location for residential intensification along a higher order street at the fringe of a developing neighborhood. And the recommended amendment would permit this development at the magnitude that is super suitable for the site in the adjacent neighborhood. It also is worth noting that it facilitates the development of a site within the built area boundary and the PTA, which is the primary transit area with an appropriate form of infill development.

So looking at SAS recommendation, the purpose and the effect of the recommended zoning amendment is to permit the development of the subject lands for this two-story, sorry, for the four-story apartment buildings, the two eight-story apartment buildings and the two nine-story apartment buildings, the total of 724 residential units. There have been, I should note, there have been quite a significant amount of neighborhood concerns with regards to traffic, density, the wood lots, and they have all been listed in a report. They report and they were addressed through that report. I’ll be happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fridayly. I will go to committee for technical questions on it.

Councillor Hill here. Thank you. I visited the site recently and my biggest concern is actually of building four. If you’re on slide six of the staff proposal is building four.

Now, if you’re familiar with the Holy Trinity Church, they have a magnificent window. It’s got to be two and a half stories tall. And my thoughts are I’m looking at building four and I’m visualizing this very large building looking down to this window during services. And I’m wondering if there’s some way we can redistribute the floors and have buildings two and three be the tallest buildings with the smaller buildings sloping off.

Has that been looked at by staff? Ms. Friday. Through you Madam Chair, my core be here.

So through discussions with the Hellenic Center, we have had discussions about redistributing the height. The zoning recommended by staff does not lock in the height of these buildings. So it could be redistributed in the future, putting more stories along Southdale or to the East along the Woodlot. So there is opportunity with the recommended zoning to do that if you would like to get more specific, we could reduce the height permissions in proximity to the Hellenic Center.

Thank you. I’d like to go to the mayor. Thanks very much. I know we’re going to hear some comments from the public, I’m sure with regard to that.

But I was heartened to hear staff just indicate that there was an opportunity to consider the distribution to potentially be used or the north side of the lot in other words, that the density is one issue that can might, may well be able to be accommodated through additional, I’ll say work with the developer and our community. I just got a question as it relates to the traffic patterns as a result of this not significant unit. And I’m just wondering what impacts staff feel that the additional residents will in this area will have on traffic volumes. Sometimes I find having gotten into the, that church parking lot can be a bit of a challenge.

Just wondering how that might well be accommodated. Through you, Madam Chair, a traffic impact assessment was done through this process and transportation has reviewed this and has no concerns moving forward. And they also said that any outstanding issues would be dealt with through the site plan approval process. So just to let you know, they did look at the increase and they have no concerns whatsoever.

So Chair through you, what would the process need to be then to be able to do a rebalancing then of the building such that we would consider the community’s concerns and also affect the developer’s plan to be able to shift the emphasis away from the church and over to all say the woodlot area that is there. What’s that process have to look like if I can ask that through you, Chair to staff? Through you, Madam Chair, my core be here. In terms of directing staff to consider that, the easiest option would likely be to direct some of the site plan approval authority to consider redistributing the heights around the site to reduce potential impacts on the Hellenic Center.

So it may well be then, Chair, but that is an outcome, although I’d like to get feedback from the developer and the community with respect to this project right now. Partly I’d like to hear as well, should the developer or the representative be speaking, what their willingness would be attitudinally to consider such site plan reconsideration and also to get some feedback from the community how they would feel about that. So if the emphasis was put on the, on all say the woodlot side versus the church side, the greater emphasis, that’s the, I think that’s where Councillor Hillyer was going and that I would be interested in supporting, but I’d like to again, get that feedback from all parties, thanks. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. We are just on technical questions at the moment with staff, maybe as we go through the process, we’ll eventually get there. I’d like to go to the applicant now. The applicant is here.

Mr. Coacheke. - Mr. Coacheke, can you hear us?

Welcome. Let me. Yes, I think we can hear you and welcome to planning committee. You have up to five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of planning committee. Ms. Casey Coacheke, I am a senior planner with Salinka Priam Limited and I am representing the developer on the project at 99 Southdale Road West. We have reviewed the staff report and we are in agreement with this recommendation to approve the zoning bylaw as presented tonight.

Just to kind of give a brief overview, we’ve been working with staff on this project for quite some time. It was initiated in 2013 at the first consultation meeting with staff and we’ve been working with staff over those years kind of to address and resolve matters relating to tree retention, site layout, parkland education, traffic studies, and various other planning matters ahead of formally submitting the application. After a considerable back and forth with staff and studies, we’ve submitted our application in the fall of 2019 and the formal notice of application went out February 7th of 2020 with the public notice sign being posted shortly thereafter. This application has been on the public record and for approximately two years and we’re well beyond the statutory timelines put forth by the Planning Act for this.

So we’re very excited to be here tonight with the recommendation for approval to take this project to the next stage being the site plan approval process. We are aware that the adjacent landowner, the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox community has filed some correspondence, requesting a four month deferral of this application to March 2022 in order for them to have a new council installed and bring them up to speed on the proposal. Given the amount of time this application has been in the public record and on public notice, the extensive efforts of the applicant and city to address other comments received during the review process. We do not support the request or further delays to this application.

In their letter, the Holy Trinity community suggests that views to their church building are to be protected. That’s not correct. There is no policy in the Southwest area secondary plan that states that and the East Boswick area plan only suggests that visual amenity of the church could be maintained through site design but is not explicitly protected or preserved. Furthermore, the Holy Trinity community decided to construct their beautiful church at the rear of their lands behind their existing community center in a location where it would already be screened by existing vegetation and buildings when they had the opportunity to construct it closer to Southdale Road West, where it would be more prominent landmark along the streetscape.

The Holy Trinity community then constructed a large front addition to their community center giving it prominence and further screening views from the church, from the Southdale Road Notre Dame entry to their site. It is unfair and unreadable asking to have the onus for the preservation of views placed on adjacent landowners when they themselves have detrimentally impacted the views of their own church. This point we’re in agreement with staff’s recommendation for the approval of the zoning bylaw as presented. While we are open to having additional discussions regarding height distribution through the site plan approval process, we would just like to have this application be moved forward to that stage.

Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to now go to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, I’ll ask them to come forward or speak on the phone.

Madam Chair, members of the planning committee. Just one moment, please. Yes, Steve, if you could go ahead, sorry. You have up to five minutes, if you could just state your name and address if you wish.

Sure. My name is Steve Rogers. I’m a board member of the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Community Council of London and Vincidity. And beside me is Mr.

William Paul, who we’ve hired as an art consultant. We appreciate that this opportunity to present our views and the concerns regarding this development impact on the Holy Trinity community. Please refer to our presentation that we’ve sent to the members of the planning committee and to the developer. First, we want to apologize for bringing our concerns forward at this late stage of the process.

The notice of planning application of February 7th, 2020 was not brought to the attention of our board of directors. We became aware of the significance of the development upon receipt of the revised notice of application, requesting comments by October 28th, 2021. Since that time, our board has been heavily engaged in understanding the proposal and communicating with the cities and the developers, planners, and with our ward counselor. To make this decision that has such a significant impact to our Holy Trinity community, we require our memberships consent.

We have nominations and elections this month, and the new council takes office in January, 2022. We need January to evaluate the development proposal and work with the developer to articulate our concerns and to find the resolution that we can take to our membership. Our community was founded in London in 1936, 85 years ago. The community purchased the land at 131 and 133 Southdale Road West in 1975.

The site consists of the community church, which was completed in 2003, the Hellenic Community Center and a soccer pitch and field house to the rear. The community serves almost 10,000 Canadians of Greek descent in London and the surrounding area, offering programs in religious, cultural, educational, and recreational activities. Prior to COVID-19, the community center hosted 177 events with 51,840 people participating in one year. More than 90% of the participants were from the London community at large.

There are over 300 soccer matches played annually, hosting over 33,000 attendees and players. The Holy Trinity community serves an important role in the religious, cultural, and sporting life of London. The church is a community landmark with a distinctive Byzantine architecture and a 20-meter high dome. It was intentionally located at the rear of the site to offer a quiet space and permit interior light access from all four directions, creating a beautiful and unique focal point for the East Boswick area.

Our goal is to retain and enhance the significant landmark building as developing occurs around the site. Our community has had a long successful relationship with the city of London and surrounding residential developers to protect and enhance the views into our site and the views light into the church. Through the East Boswick area plan and the Southwest area secondary plan, these urban design views are protected. Our request is to continue the discussion and that has occurred over the past few weeks to improve the urban design, reduce the building heights, and reposition development as it affects our lands.

In reviewing the planning staff report dated November 22, 2021, we note that there is insufficient consideration to protect the significant architectural and design features of the Holy Trinity Church and site. Similarly, reviewing the planning and design report and the revised site plan, the proposal does not address the significant church architecture and community significance of the Hellenic Center. The proposed zoning bylaw amendment, reducing setbacks and increasing building height, permits buildings that will have an invasive and negative impact on our community’s lands and buildings and reduce the visual significance of the church. Finally, there are a number of site plan matters that require consideration by the Holy Trinity community, the applicant and the city, and the city prior to adopting the zoning regulations.

It is premature at this time for the community to support the application as presented. Deferral at this time is appropriate, recognizing the importance of the Holy Trinity community to London, the forthcoming executive elections and the general assembly meetings and the architectural significance of our church. Thank you for allowing me to address our concerns. Our community members, our entrepreneurs, we have a full understanding of the economic benefits and economic growth given to our city by developers.

We are here to work together and achieve a mutually agreed term for the benefits of all parties involved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Verichurros.

Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment? Madam Chair, we have Pamela Cochran-McInnis in community room number one. I wish us to speak to this. Thank you, please come forward, stating your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes.

My name is Pamela Cochran-McInnis. I live at 166 Southdale Road West, directly across from the proposed rezoning application site where there’s 161 town home condo units. I have lived here for over 25 years. It is a joy to hear and see wildlife in our neighborhood and is one of the reasons I have remained lifted living in this area.

For this reason and others, I oppose this application due to many facts and concerns. Number one, environmental impacts. This area is considered to be protected wetlands and is a landmark. Trees, deer, geese, ducks, reptile, bullfrogs, turtles and other living creatures, including our provincial flower, trilliums are in this area.

Any kind of construction, particularly of this magnitude with underground parking will destroy the surrounding wildlife and natural habitat and have a negative impact on the environment, ecosystem and its community residents. There will also be an increase with noise and pollution. How can the city allow the development to proceed on protected and regulated land? It would be irresponsible and contravene with the city’s environmental policies and the ministry of the environment, conservation and parks authority and regulations.

There would be no benefit to the residents of this area. Number two, gridlock and traffic issue. High density will further increase the traffic issue that will result in more accidents and gridlocks. The traffic is so dense that we have difficulty entering and exiting our complex.

We have no other means of entering and exiting our property. Having both entry and exit points of the proposed development facing north on Southdale, directly across from our complexes entry and exit points facing south will create even more havoc and gridlock with entry and exiting our complex. The center lane is used not only for entering our complex from the west, but for exiting to the east as the center lane is used in order to cross over to the eastbound lanes. The center lane is also used for turning south into the Hellenic center where they host several events as we have just heard.

So you have traffic coming from all directions using the center lane in a confined area. Proposed development could house 2,000 residents and if each household has two cars, that is a total of 4,000 vehicles going in and out of the proposed development. Impeding traffic flow and obstructing us from entering and exiting our complex. Our complex is 161 units with a maximum of 322 vehicles.

That is an increase of 1,142 in a very restricted area. Note that all along Southdale Road from Fund Mills to West Elborn, there are no adjacent properties where entrances and exit points face directly across from one another. We cannot be blocked then to build all these units with would be a hindrance to traffic flow, resulting in safety issues where it’s all that would affect delivery of service vehicles, including first responders. Number three, safety issue.

Higher volume of traffic will result in more vehicle and pedestrian accidents. One resident was hit by a car at Notre Dame in Southdale while walking crossing at the light. She still walks with a cane. Earlier this month, I was almost hit by a driver in the same area because they were too impatient to wait while I crossed the street.

It is very dangerous walking down Southdale between a more plan for Wonderland. Many of the spheres that we will be hit by a car, the frustration we have endured for the current traffic density, racing of motorists, noise, construction, and higher crime rates is affecting our neighborhood and is causing havoc, anxiety, and safety concerns for many of us. Number four, our frontage view will be obstructed. Any development will impede the frontage view of residents homes within our complex.

According to the city’s original plan, there cannot be any obstruction in the frontage of our property facing South. Number five, higher crime will ensue with higher population density. Since the development of houses near Singleton Avenue, there has been more crime in the area. When you build high density apartment buildings, the crime rate will increase.

The city of London needs to protect it. Our precious land and citizens at every cost, it is not always about making money profit and appeasing developers, it is about planning wisely and consciously. Many of us have lived in this area for over 20 years, some over 40. The landscape has changed and not favorably.

The construction and development has been ongoing for years and enough is enough. The city has a responsibility to protect designated protected lands and to protect, safeguard the existing residents of this area. It can do so by vetoing this planning application. I do not stand alone to date there have been over 75 residents who have signed the petition to stop the rezoning and development at 99 Southdale Road Fest.

Thank you. Thank you. And I’d like to go to the public and ask one more time if there’s anyone that would like to speak to this recommendation. I see none.

And with that, I’d like to go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman and Councillor Lewis is seconding. I’ll vote yes, true. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

So with that, I’d like to go to committee members. I know there were a few comments made around the traffic, the concerns in the community and opportunities to move the buildings around through the site plan process. So I think staff have already addressed those. And I’d like to go to Councillor Lewis first.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna move the staff recommendation to get our conversation focused and on the floor. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Hamou is seconding.

And I’ll go back to the mover. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to comment and I thank Councillor Hill here for asking this during the technical questions. I appreciate the comment that there’s an opportunity for some of the stories of the buildings to be moved around during the site plan process.

And I think that I would include direction in my motion to refer to the site plan authority, the concerns that were raised by the public and in particular from the Hellenic Center, because I think that there is an opportunity to have continuing discussion as site plan moves forward. I will say, however, and I say this with all due respect to the members of the Hellenic Center, a deferral because of a change in the church council is not grounds under the Planning Act for us to defer. And I’ve been to events at the Hellenic Center and their great events and they’re well-hosted. But nothing in this application would prevent visitors from continuing to come to the Hellenic Center, whether it’s for church services or for soccer or for a community event.

I know that guests will still come and they’ll still be welcomed as they always have been. But I think when we talk about the impact on planning application, we do have to consider that an institutional use next door, like a church, is not the same as the impact on a residential use next door. When people visit a church or a community center, they’re there for a few hours for whatever their purpose is, or whether it’s a church service or a wedding or a funeral or a soccer game, and then they go home. And they are no longer impacted by there being a building next door.

So it’s a different level of impact for me than if this was happening immediately adjacent, side-by-side to some single-family homes where you would have people looking into your backyard all night long or all day long. So I have to weigh that in the consideration that that’s an institutional use. People aren’t living beside this development. I do, however, hope that as the site plan moves forward, the applicant and their agent will consider what was heard because I do think that there are opportunities to rearrange which buildings are nine stories or eight stories or four stories in a way that could reduce the impact a little bit and address some of the concerns from the Hellenic Center.

So that’s the reason I’m moving this. And I don’t know if we need it being noted or if the clerks have captured that will direct the site planning and authority to consider the concerns raised by the Hellenic Center, but I would like that included in the motion. I wonder if I can go to staff to see if we can put in and then it being noted, a pause to receive the comments that we’ve heard tonight and to forward them onto the site plan process. Do what if we can do that?

I’m asking whoever can answer that question. I could go to them. Madam Chair, it’s Heather McNeely speaking. I’ll take that question.

Yes, through you Madam Chair, you could probably add that being noted under clause B of the recommendation clause, add it to the list that’s already provided, V-I-I. That can be added as V-I-I as suggested by Councillor Lewis. I think we’ll just start with that. He is the mover of the motion.

So with that, I do have a number of other comments still to be made from Mayor Holder. If I can go to you and then I’ll go to Councillor Hillyer and I noticed Councillor Vameer Bergen is here as well. If I can go in that order, Mayor Holder. Thank you, Chair.

I would have struggled with this being moved until I think Councillor Lewis rightly talked about the site plan referral, which I think makes this more acceptable. I won’t lie, I was somewhat surprised by the applicant’s pretty firm position, not looking to be flexible, not sure because there was a thought that the staff recommendation would necessarily carry the day. I just surprised by what felt like an arbitrary position when in fact you heard flexibility from the staff at the front end that they said, look, density works, but we’re prepared to work with the community and the applicant to shift. I didn’t hear that from the applicant, but I’m optimistic because of the regard I have for the applicant as well.

Having said that, I would also agree with Councillor Lewis that a change of council from an election standpoint for a community group wouldn’t be a basis for a delay, but I am concerned about what we heard that, and I find this somewhat hard difficult to understand how notice would not have been given. So there’s a couple of challenges, both ways with this, but Chair, I absolutely fundamentally hope that the applicant will work thoughtfully with the community, not just the Trinity Holy Church, but also neighbors across the way, just because this communication piece is so important. But with the referral, I’m prepared to support the referral to a site plan discussion before I would consider giving ultimate approval to it, but I will support Councillor Lewis’s addition to this. I’d like to go to Councillor Hillier.

Thank you, yes. The mayor got me on the council of the church. I agree changing that over doesn’t make a difference in our decision-making process. I was moving towards the other way, but I am going to support now, Councillor Lewis.

Now we have the floors being discussed at the site plan. I feel that should cover the problem, this has been discussed for a very long time now. Thank you. I’d like to go to Councillor VanNierberg.

Councillor, welcome to planning. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always a pleasure to go up at planning. It’s unfortunate that it has to be done through Zoom because you’re well-known for handing out templates and so on, so sorry, I have to miss that.

I do want to say I’ve had the pleasure and privilege of meeting with both representative of the applicants and representatives of the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox community. And I have to say there is quite a level of goodwill on both sides. I don’t think they’re that far apart in terms of what they’re looking for. Certainly from the Holy Trinity perspective, it’s clear to me that they really want to protect their congregation and their members from any kind of interference on any level with their religious and spiritual practices.

And I feel in a very profound way from their perspective that having a nice story building within just a few feet, relative few feet from their boundary line on the eastern side, as mentioned by Councillor Hillier, the beautiful 22-foot clear window to have balconies on nine levels with perhaps people on their balconies barbecuing, who knows what during these religious services and practices, it is of concern. And you can see why this would raise the consternation from that community. But I think there is the opportunity to find common ground. It’s been discussed earlier in this meeting and indeed earlier at our direct meetings that we had at the community, that the redistribution of these floors while maintaining the overall number of units may very well be exactly what is necessary here to reach that common ground.

So I think the chance to achieve this is really in everybody’s interests. And so what I’d like to know now, I didn’t quite catch Councillor Lewis’s part, I guess it’s small Roman numeral seven. If I could have that read as to exactly what will be stated, what is stated in that? If I can go to staff.

So it will be considered the comments made by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox community of London and vicinity. Okay, so that doesn’t strike me as being very firm. Is there a way, perhaps through Councillor Lewis, that we can maybe tighten up the language so that it’s more than just consider that? I’d like to go to Councillor Lewis.

Councillor Boehme, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. I think I can clarify for Councillor Van Mirberg and only having part VII read out. Councillor, what you missed is in clause A, of which part seven is a sub clause.

It says that site plan matters have been raised through this application review process to be addressed through the site plan approval process. So it’s already in part A that the site plan matters are going to be addressed through the site plan approval. The part VII is referring the specific comments that we heard from the Atlantic Center and Trinity Church into that process as well. So hopefully through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Van Mirberg and that clarifies that to be addressed through the site plan approval process as part of the preamble to VII.

Councillor van Mirberg and it is addressed through the whole comments in the recommendation. I appreciate the more wholesome reading of what is here. I just want to also add that this really is a jewel of the city of London, this particular church and community. The architecture alone is so unique indeed throughout all of Western Ontario.

So if there’s a way that we can achieve something that is lower right next to this beautiful building, then that’s indeed a plus for all of London because it’s something we all share. Additionally, perhaps just to close, I do want to move back to the traffic scenario because there is a number of, I know we’ve talked about it, but there is obviously a number of vehicles that will be added into the Southville system right there. I thought I heard that there will be an additional traffic light. Could we get staff to comment on that?

Staff, the question is specific to an additional light. Is that right, Councillor van Mirberg? Yeah, I thought I saw there was a proposal for an additional traffic light outside of one of the entrances to this new project. For you, Madam Chair, there is no proposal for a new signal.

This was brought to transportation through the process and I’ve actually spoken with them and confirmed this. And they also indicated that that could be something to be discussed. However, all of this again will be discussed for the site plan approval process in a larger context, if that makes sense. Councillor van Mirberg.

Okay, so from the point of view of staff, a signalized intersection with the new development is not off the table. I understand from staff’s response that there will be opportunities to address the traffic flow in this area. Right, but Madam Chair, if I could just have staff just basically confirm that the lighted or the traffic signal at one of the entrances is not necessarily off the table. Staff.

Through you, Madam Chair, there was a neighbor concern about a signal. There is a signal very close by, so a further larger study would have to be undertaken, but again, it’s going to be something that will be taken into consideration during the site plan approval process, but it would have to be assessed, like it would have to be warranted to be assessed. Okay, no, I understand that. I’m wondering if it might be possible to give direction or some type of indication that that be looked at as part of the site plan approval process.

I don’t know if anybody of committee would— Councillor van Mirberg, and just to help you out, I’m understanding from staff that there are studies that would be needed to undertake that, and it will be addressed through the site plan process. Madam Chair, if I may, it’s Heather McNeely speaking, we’ve learned through this for the zoning review process that traffic is not an issue in terms of the additional traffic that’s generated from the site. Through the site plan process, our transportation team also look at the site plan and would determine at the site plan consultation, whether or not they would need an additional study, and again, refine further in terms of the unit count. However, in an additional traffic late at this intersection, there’s several along Southdale Road.

So it would have to be looked at between both between Warmcliffe and Wonderland as a whole, as you can appreciate, there’s many traffic signalized intersections along this, and it would impede the traffic flow. So they would be looking at it more as a system approach rather than at a site-specific location. Right, okay, well, thank you very much for that. Okay, well, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councillor van Mirberg, and for joining us. And I’d like to go to other committee members for comments, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do understand the concerns of the church, but what I’m hearing from staff is that there is some room here to maybe find some accommodation.

So I’d like to ask through you, Madam Chair, to staff to, I guess, address the issue primarily of the building in the southwest corner by the church. If that was to be affected to accommodate the church’s aims here, would the staff see that to be a big issue in adjusting heights to make up for what was lost in the back building on the other buildings? Staff. - Through you, Madam.

Yes, thank you. Through you, Madam Chair, my core be here. We wouldn’t see that as a big issue, as mentioned, the recommended by-law would permit those heights on other areas of the site. So again, it would simply be shifting those heights through the site plan approval process.

All right, thank you very much. That’s important. I think what we have here is that we’re fortunate that the development site is large enough with a number of opportunities to, I think, make some accommodation here. I’m confident in the developer working willing to work with the church to be a good neighbor for the continued health of all in that area and that beautiful church there at the Atlantic Center.

And I’m confident now that staff has the wherewithal to work with the developer and make that accommodation. So I will support this with that site plan edition. Thank you, Councillor Layman. And as the committee will allow me, I’d like to make my comments here from the chair.

And before I do so, a quick question to staff, we heard from the church, their concerns about the board and their board wanting to have a more of a fulsome conversation and that will be starting up in the new year. I’d like to ask a quick question about the site plan timelines, not that I’m wanting any commitment about timelines, but generally speaking when we go through a site plan process, it is a process. There is time for that process to take place. If I can ask that question to staff.

Madam Chair, I’ll take this question as well. Yes, there is some time with this. However, it’s not a public process. This is an administrative review completed by staff, but we would be taking into consideration the comments made by committee and ultimately council as part of your decision-making here.

Thank you for that. I appreciate that and it’s important that we heard from the church this evening at this public participation meeting, as well as from the public. And I will be supporting this recommendation going forward. It’s been a long time coming.

There have been any conversations about development of this area. And I’m very supportive of this medium housing. We know the buildings cannot go past nine stories. And I’m very supportive of the woodlot to remain in place a certain portion of it as OS4.

And obviously the density is to the west because of this woodlot and environmental management plans are still to be required as well as a section 28. So I will be supporting this development moving forward. And with that, we’ll should all go. There’s a motion already on the floor.

And if we can vote. Chair Stemiro would yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And moving on, we’ve had a change in our agenda.

And I’d like to bring 5.1, which is the added delegation from Mr. Levin to be received. If I can get a change in order and a motion from Councillor Lewis, Councillor Hameu seconds. And if we can vote on that.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And I think we’re ready to receive the delegation. Mr. Levin, welcome to the Planning and Environmental Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and welcome Councillor Hameu to the committee. Report is on the next to the last page of your very long agenda. Wanted to speak to a couple of them.

Item 2.1, the 2022 budget update. Want to thank staff for attending our meeting. We were very pleased to see a recommendation from staff to continue funding the work to fight invasive plant species by taking funds from a reserve fund. We also noted that COVID’s been hard on all of us, including our environmentally significant areas.

And Council might consider using that urban forest renewal reserve to improve the management of our ESAs over the next couple of years. Item 3.2 is a good news story. Residents of the city are donating environmentally significant land that they owned to the Thames Talbot Land Trust. People should know that there is quite beneficial tax regime involved for people who do that.

But these are also people who care very much for the environment. This is a part of the city where it would never have come into city ownership and city management. So this is a good news story. We were pleased to see this happen and hope the application moves forward quickly.

That’s for a severance, Madam Chair. I’ll move on to item 5.3 of our agenda. I want to thank staff for involving us in the review of the Environmental Management Guidelines. It’s an update of a 15 year old policy.

It’s been time well spent. We met actually today with staff to talk about the report that is coming to your committee on December 13th. And that’s why the committee moved at its meeting last week to ask me to speak on its behalf to you at that public participation meeting. And I want to thank your clerk for moving this item onto the agenda for this meeting.

So as opposed to your next meeting, which would be after the public participation meeting. And finally, 5.4 relates to an ongoing discussion we’ve had about a relocation of a wetland given that these will happen in multiple locations in the city because of the London plan. We asked that we have a further discussion about it in January or February. But Madam Chair, that does point out that you’re considering at SPPC and perhaps a council governance committee recommendation on advisory committees going forward.

EPAC’s term is scheduled to end at the end of this calendar year. And the new committees won’t be in place right away. So I’ll hope that SPPC and that council, the council will consider extending at least EPAC’s term until the new replacement committee is in panel. With that, I’ll put the rest of our committee report on the floor for you and be happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, thank you for joining Mr. Levin. And I will go to the committee if there’s any questions regarding the EPAC report. Councillor Lehman.

Thank you, Mr. Levin. I just wanted you to expand a bit more on the property that’s being donated to the city. It’s property as it says in your agenda on Wood Hall Road.

It is a severance application that is before your planning staff. It appeared on EPAC’s agenda because it is part of the, an ESA on that western, southwestern part of the city. Part of the lands are in the county. And it’s frankly a spectacular site that is worthy of protection.

And I wanted to commend the owners and just advise your committee of the action and kind of encourage others to do the same if they are in the similar position. Thank you, Mr. Levin. And yeah, thank you for bringing that to our attention, the public’s attention.

I agree with you. It’s terrific when people step up and donate property to make our city better. Thank you. Are there any further or other comments from committee members?

I see none. I wonder if the committee will allow me just to thank Mr. Levin for being here. Really appreciate the comments around our ESA’s in particular as they are well used.

And also around the opportunity for you to have make public comments at the environmental management guidelines process as well that’s coming to us. I wonder if I can just ask staff when that public participation meeting will be the next planning meeting. If I can just get, question is around the delegation that we are going to be receiving for EPAC to attend the environmental management guidelines public process. Madam Chair, it’s not Valberg speaking.

I’m looking for Kevin Edwards. I don’t see him, but from my understanding from the EPAC meeting this morning, we’ll be bringing that report to the December 13th planning and environment committee. Thank you. And I guess that’s why we’re all here receiving this request as well.

The other comment that I would like to make, I appreciate your comments as well for the members of EPAC to extend that term. So I guess we will be addressing that when we address advisory committees. And thank you, Mr. Levin, for bringing these items to our attention.

You’re welcome, Madam Chair. Thank you for having me. And with that, we’ll move on to the next scheduled item. Do we need to vote for these?

We need to approve and receive the report. Councillor Layman. Seconded by Councillor Homue. And with that, we will vote.

And I do apologize to deal with. City chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero.

So now we will move on to the next item, which is 3.4, it is 370 South Street and 124 Colvin Street, and you wonder if I could go to the committee to open up the public participation meeting. Report, Councillor Layman. Seconded by Councillor Rossella. And with that, we will vote on it.

And I do apologize. I’ll vote yes, Chair. If people are joining us now, I would just let you in. Please turn off your other devices you have going with the streaming because it’s feeding out.

I think we’re resolved our technical challenges. I’d like to go to the committee to open up our public participation meeting. And this is 3.4 on 370 South Street and 124 Colvin Street. I can go to a committee members to open up the PPM.

Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Hillyer. We can go and vote on opening up closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero.

And I understand we have a presentation here from staff. I would like to go to staff to do the presentation. We have up to five minutes. Thank you, Chair and committee.

So this application before committee at the moment is one of a pair of applications on this evening. The second one is immediately following this one. They’re both for the lands located at 377th Street and 124 Colburn. The first one is OZ9418.

This is the official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the lands and the item to immediately follow this will be the site plan public meeting. The application is an application by the Vision SoHo Alliance led by the Indwell Group along with a number of other affordable housing providers who I believe are in attendance today. For the benefit of those following along, I will be speaking from the staff presentation that is available on the agenda. So the proposed development calls for a total of 674 dwelling units, five new apartment buildings and two converted buildings, both former hospital buildings that have been preserved.

The application relies on 480 parking spaces located primarily in an underground shared structure. It is an applicant driven affordable housing project with units to be provided both at CMHC defined of affordable housing and deep affordable rents along with other apartments offered at a market rate. It’s also going to be proposed to be developed through a condominium process, which is relevant to the applications. So the next slide slide three shows the complete site plan.

You can see there are six buildings to be promoted for what is the 370 South Street site. So that’s the block surrounded by Hill, Colburn, South and Waterloo. And then there’s also the development east of Colburn Street at 124 Colburn. So the amendments fall into three basic categories.

There are official plan amendments both to the London plan in the 1989 official plan to allow the application for a draft plan of vacant land condominium proceed as proposed. And this is to account for the multiple apartment buildings located above a shared underground parking garage, which would not otherwise be permitted under our official plan. The second group of amendments are amendments to the old Victoria Hospital lands secondary plan, which applies to the area. This is primarily for the developments along Hill Street to allow for apartment buildings.

And in the third set of amendments, our zoning amendments, these are primarily technical details to allow the development to proceed as designed, although there are notable amendments to the permissions along Hill Street that follow from the amendments to the secondary plan. So the first set of amendments are request amendments to the two official plans. What they’re looking here to permit is the development to proceed as a vacant land condominium. This would allow the development to receive financing to support the affordable housing elements of the project prior to their construction, which would be required under a standard condominium.

We’ve received a letter from their lawyer indicating how they indicated would operate and our legal team is concurred with the decision are recommended by their lawyer. And for that reason, the policies are recommended to exempt the subject lands from those specified policies. The second set of amendments are more minor policy amendments to the secondary plan that applies to the lands. The first set of amendments are very specific amendments that look at the architectural approach that could be taken on site.

In these instances, the spirit of the policy is still being maintained by the development is proposed, although the development’s not able to meet it to the letter. And for that reason, the amendments are proposed for those general policies. This would apply to the development at 124 Colburn primarily. There is one amendment that was requested by the applicant for the 124 Colburn site, which is in what is referred to as the four corners area under the secondary plan.

It requested permission or a removal of policy that supported commercial at that corner. This amendment is not required for the development to proceed as proposed. For that reason, it’s recommended for refusal as we felt it was not appropriate to weaken the policies that applied at that time. So the final set of amendments to the secondary plan and for those following along, this is on slide eight, is for a redesignation of lands currently designated low rise residential under the secondary plan and to change the designation on them to mid rise.

This reflects the development proposed, but it also has the effect of allowing for apartment buildings in addition to stack towns. The applicant through their application requested height limitation of five stories, which would maintain the existing height limit under the current policies and this request is recommended for approval. The final set of amendments are zoning bylaw amendments to support the development, again, as proposed. The first set of zoning bylaw amendments are general amendments to allow for encroachment of elements like balconies, architectural features, terraces, patios, porches and the like.

Given the right of way around or on these lands, it was deemed appropriate that this be allowed just given the relatively small compared to the street with area that the developer would be working with. If you were to turn to the tent slide, you’ll note the thin gray line indicating the property limit for the site is actually quite restrictive relative to the other properties around that have not yet taken road winding. And given that wide right of way, it was deemed that that was appropriate. The zoning boundary adjustments on the tent slide, what’s worthy of note here is the shift in the zoning line along or parallel to Hill Street that has been moved south.

What this permission does is basically create larger development blocks along Hill Street for them to proceed as apartment buildings. There’s also been some minor adjustments to what is the R8456 zone just to bring those lines in line with the park being created at the southeast corner of the block and align the southern kind of the property line between that R8456 and the OS1 to align with the plans for sale of those lands and the stairs on the front of that existing heritage building. The final kind of details around the zoning amendments proposed is the first is to allow for apartment buildings to be added as a permitted use along Hill Street in the R84 zone in that location. Currently the restriction is for stacked townhouses only.

It’s worthy of note here that the proposal relies on a townhouse like form with individual entrances along Hill Street for all three of the buildings proposed in that location. It would also remove the density cap of 75 units per hectare along Hill Street and that’s following from the secondary plan amendments that are recommended. There’s also an application of a 0.5 parking space per unit for that zone that matches the parking requirement for the remainder of the lands that’s already in place. There was a request for zero parking spaces for commercial uses in the R8457 zone.

That is the zone that applies to the south end of 124 Colburn Street, so the northeast corner of Colburn and south and given the large amount of street parking in that location and the relatively small amount of commercial that was recommended as well. There’s also a slight adjustment to the landscape to open space for again for 124 Colburn Street that from 20% to the high teens, this is reflective of both the large right of way which limits the developable space on the parcel and the aims to maximize the amount of housing provided on that location. It is worthy of note that there are a number of other minor technical zoning file amendments that are included in the report. For a number of these, there are adjustments that don’t actually change the setbacks.

So just as an example, for 124 Colburn a request to change the frontage from south to Colburn and interior yard, the side yard would become a rear yard and the requirement both prior to and after the zone by amendment application would be the same. So again, three sets of recommended amendments. The first to allow for the development to proceed as a draft plan of vacant land condominium amendments to the old Victoria hospital land’s plan, secondary plan to allow for apartment buildings along Hill Street through a re designation for mid-rise designation and then zoning file amendments primarily technical in nature, but also again, to reflect that permission for apartment buildings along Hill Street. Thank you, Mr.

Mayland. Any technical questions from committee? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just one technical question and it’s on the piece that staff are recommending refusal of ground floor commercial on. And I recognize that we’re working from existing policy documents and plans. However, as we know during the last almost two years of a pandemic situation, there’s been a considerable change in the vacancy and the demand for commercial space. And I’m wondering if any sort of analysis, planning impact analysis took that into consideration given that I think probably no one wants to see this vision so a whole development result in a bunch of vacant spaces created in a building on the ground floor with potentially no demand for commercial use.

So through you to our staff, was consideration given to the changing commercial real estate market and demand for commercial spaces? Or are we working from a policy basis that predates the pandemic change in real estate demand? Madam Madam. Hi, it’s Mike Pease, manager of stipend.

I can answer that question through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Lewis. In some respects, they are already proposing some commercial spaces. However, the zoning that was in place prior to the zoning that’s before you today already provided some flexibility to have either residential or commercial. So refusing it in a sense is already advocating or providing for what’s already permitted.

So it was just a policy change to reflect what is already in place. The policy is permissive, it’s not prescriptive. So that’s the zoning is already in place to allow for that flexible approach, whether it be commercial or residential. Thank you, Mr.

Pease, that’s extremely helpful, as always from you in the many years I’ve been working with you on different applications. So thank you. Any other technical questions? I do have a quick one to staff regarding the Parkland dedication.

If you can expand on that Parkland dedication, I understand it’s 5%, but if you can just add a little bit more context to it. Through the chair, the standard requirement is 5% cash in lieu, there’s no change from any other standard proposal for Parkland. I guess I’m not sure if there was another element to the question that I may have missed. Yeah, just so it’s not cash in lieu, it is the 5% that we are going to be getting.

Through you, Madam Chair, it’s Mike Pease again. So just to reiterate what Mr. Maitland said. So I think the question is about Parkland dedication.

And in this case, it would be cash in lieu based on the number of units. There’s a rate per unit that would be applied. There would be no other Parkland applied to this area, just as a reminder as well, there is the civic space that is at the four corners intersection. That is a separate city project that is occurring at some point in the near future, I would hope, but the park would be separate and it would be public land that would be owned by the city.

Thank you for that clarification. I’d like to now go to the applicants. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Committee, it’s Harry Frucio’s from Zolinka Priemo, Senior Associate. I’m pleased to bring forward this application on behalf of the Vision Soho Alliance group this evening and with me in attendance this evening is also Ron Robottum, who is the Vice Chair of Vision Soho Alliance.

And we also have Jim Sheffield and Tim Wickens of Nicholson Sheffield Architects. And we’re all here to address the committee and able to answer any questions that may arise. Firstly, we just want to thank staff for their efforts. There’s been a very strong collaboration between staff and the Vision Soho team.

There’s been several meetings held in order to bring this application forward for consideration in a very timely fashion and we’re very appreciative of their efforts. I’ll be brief, Mr. Mayland has already provided a very excellent overview of the application. It’s an application to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the old Victoria Hospital lands for residential uses, including affordable housing within five new buildings and two existing heritage buildings, an application which is unique, appropriate, and necessary.

It’s unique to our knowledge is the first of its kind. The proposed redevelopment is being undertaken by Vision Soho Alliance, which is comprised of six nonprofit community-based organizations, all with previous development experience in the city of London. There are Chelsea Greenholm Society, Holmes Unlimited, Indwell, which is based out of Hamilton, but they’re rapidly becoming a prominent affordable housing provider in the community. The Italian Seniors Project, London Affordable Housing Foundation, and Zarin Development Corporation.

These organizations have joined together with a common goal of providing housing opportunities which are sustainable, accessible, and affordable, while also integrating the development into the Soho community in a responsible, comprehensive, and coordinated manner. Through the retention and reuse of the existing health services and more memorial children’s hospital buildings, the historical and heritage significance of the property in the area is also being preserved as part of this development. There has been extensive public engagement through the efforts of the Vision Soho team, including hosting two separate virtual open houses to interested members of the public. Both open houses were well attended, and we were very pleased at the overall level of support that was provided for the project.

This application is appropriate. The amendments will realize the goals and objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement, both London Official Plans, the Old Victoria Hospital Land Secondary Plan, which encourages mixed use in residential intensification, a mix of housing types in a compact built form, and the integration of heritage buildings to create a diverse and inclusive residential and mixed use neighborhood. The proposed amendments will respect the current height permissions established for the various areas within the secondary plan area, and will make efficient use of the lands to provide much needed housing opportunities in the community. And lastly, it’s a necessary application.

The amendments are necessary to facilitate the proposed development, which will provide approximately 674 housing units, of which a minimum of 400 of those units will be affordable housing units, and 100 of those, or at least 100 of those, will be at deep affordability rates. It is the intent of the Alliance to begin construction as early as 2022, with the goal of completing the project in 2024. Approval of the proposed amendments will assist the city of London in realizing its immediate goal of providing necessary affordable housing units to a wide range of families, individuals, and special needs groups in order in our community in a very timely fashion. We support the staff recommendation to approve the necessary amendments of the official plan, the London plan, the secondary plan, and the zoning by-law.

We have no issue with the staff recommendation to refuse the amendment relating to commercial uses on the ground floor. Based on the interpretation, we heard this evening that they want to maintain the policy in its current form, and it would not preclude the proposed development. So with that, Madam Chair, members of the committee, we thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Division’s SoHo Alliance. As I has noted before, we are available to answer any questions you may have, and I thank again for allowing us to speak on their behalf.

Thank you for being here. I’d like to go to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to make a comment, please come forward. Madam Chair, we have Kelly McKee Chimi.

Join us by Zoom, and we do have Wayne Ray in the community rooms. And just wondering who we should go to first. You may wish to go to McKee Chimi first. It’s McKee Chimi.

Right, thank you. It is Kelly McKee Chimi, and I’m speaking both on behalf of myself personally and the architectural conservancy of London. And I just want to express strong support and enthusiasm for this development proposal. And I’m speaking to 3.4 and 3.5 here.

The proposal is good for the Soho neighborhood. It’s good for the greater London community. And as a bonus, it’s good for the conservation of heritage architecture. The proposed new buildings have designs that are sympathetic to the two existing buildings with a scale that’s respectful of the two existing heritage buildings.

So I just wanted to, a lot of the times when ACO London is speaking, we’re opposing things, we’re being negative. And this is an opportunity for us to be positive and I wanted to seize that opportunity. Thanks very much. Thank you very much.

I’d like to now go to the committee room one and two. Sir, if you could come forward, please. Can I hear me? Yes.

You can just state your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes. My name is Wayne Ray, I live in 430 South Street through various discussions and two heated ones today. We have a few that we think are important points. One I believe was answered, although I’m not clear about the commercial.

I’ll start with that one. The nearest grocery stores are a mile to a mile and a half away in either direction, Knoxford and Richmond and I believe commissioners and Wellington. Without amount of traffic coming and going there, is there, is there not a plan for like a large convenience store or small grocery store or even shoppers drug mark that sells food as well. This would cut down on the traffic in the area and a lot of the seniors wouldn’t have, who can’t get out, would not have far to go.

The main concern is the at 430 South Street, I believe 40 of the 70 units are of Polish descent immigrants after the Second World War. There was no notices in the native language, most of them don’t know what’s going on. They’re having difficulty reading and speaking English and I’ve tried to talk to several of them and they just know there’s a building and that’s the limit of the conversation going. Through several discussions, we were wondering why the largest building, 11 stories high, is going to be like within 100 feet of our building blocking the entire Westerly Sun where a lot of seniors need sunlight and what’s the possibility architecturally of switching the five and the 11.

So that the 11 story overlooks a vacant, partly used parking lot for the church and five stories would be right beside ours and not be that much of an inconvenience for the Westerly Sun, particularly in the winter. It’s going to be pretty dark, I would think with an 11 story building overshadowing just the seniors building. The third point, the final point is was brought up is South Street between Colborne and Wellington because of all the new traffic and also the new building that’s on the south side of South Street, will it be converted to two way traffic between Wellington and Colborne to alleviate cars going past say the seniors building and the next one over 440 is mixed population with a lot of families. That might be something no one’s considered but I think that would alleviate a lot of the traffic but our primary concern is this huge building blocking ours.

Thank you very much. Thank you and I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that’d like to speak to this recommendation, I see none. We’ll go to the committee to close the PPM, Chancellor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hellier.

And with that we can— Chair, I’ll vote yes. Close the— Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Committee, I would like to go to staff to address, I think we have three questions here from the public regarding the need for some commercial space in particular, a pharmacy or a convenience store if that was ever considered through conversations. The concerns around the height or switching number five building with number 11 to reduce the height that’s next to the seniors home.

And the third one was it was a South Street ever considered to have two-way traffic, I think from Wellington to Colburn. Hopefully I got those questions right to staff. They’ve got any comments? Chair, this is life, Maitland here.

Yeah, thanks to that member of the public, these were reflective of comments we received through the public process. And that’s reflected in both the official plan report and the site plan report following as well. So with regards to the first comment, I request around a grocery store, another commercial. The permitted commercial under the zone allows for, one second here, pharmacies, convenience stores, restaurants, so that there would be a permission for that type of use in the 124 Colburn space.

And as stated previously, the current proposal does provide for a retail space to be filled. Again, it’s permissive rather than requiring, but the design is for that and that’s the current proposal. I don’t know if the applicant has lined up but particular retail tenant at this point. With regards to the second question around the kind of level of density, level of intensity, locating it at the south side towards Colburn and south, the long-term planning for this area has very much looked at Colburn and South Street as kind of a central port point within the greater Soho area.

So although the level of development is less than that’s what’s being provided across the street in these currently under development on South Street there, the intention has always been for the intensity we at that corner. If you look at the full site plan for the site, particularly for 123 Colburn, you’ll notice there’s a challenge just given the depth of the property as you go north towards Hill Street, so that there is that challenge as well. But I would add, and this is more with regards to the next item that follows, is the comments that we do have or the comments around providing a good relationship between 124 Colburn and 430 South have been reflected through the site plan process. So yeah, and I guess the one final point on that, the new zoning by-law amendment does not create the permission for that 11 story at this point, that was provided previously.

So this application is not creating the permission for that. And I guess with regards to the third comment around the kind of changing south from one way to two way, no discussion has been had on that to this point that I’m aware of or through either this application or the site plan application, thank you. Thank you. I’d like to now go to the committee for comments.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I’m gonna move the staff recommendation and then I’ll share a comment once we see if there’s a seconder or not. I think you’ve got a seconder in Councillor Layman.

Great, thank you, Councillor Layman. And through you, Madam Chair, I too wanted to take a moment in particular to follow up with the member of the public who spoke about the need for whether it’s a large convenience or a grocery store or pharmacy. And I think it’s really important to share and I mean this very respectfully that that’s not something that’s within the applicant or council’s control as to what commercial entity sees it as a viable option to locate there. But I will say this, I know that we’ve heard on a number of applications for a number of years about the frustration with a lack of a good grocery anchor in the downtown core.

And I think it’s important not just for the individual who spoke this evening ‘cause I do appreciate his comments but for all members of the public who’ve raised this over multiple applications, the best way to create the conditions for a grocery store to want to locate downtown in the downtown core is to bring people downtown to live. And when we reach that critical mass where they see the ability to support the market conditions for a grocery store, I have no doubt that the private sector will see the opportunity and move in there pretty quickly because of course for them it’s an opportunity to make money and to support customers. So I suspect that we will see that. And the addition of this many units in this neighborhood goes a long way I think towards building towards the critical mass that is needed to justify for a grocery store chain to locate a retail space in the downtown.

So I think that we’re moving in the right direction to encourage that by approving developments with this kind of density. I also want to say, I want to thank Mr. Frugius and I want to thank Mr. Longbottom in particular as well as I don’t know if Greg Playford is on the call or watching tonight but I want to thank the three of them for at least making the time.

In fact, before this application even was on our agenda to meet with me and discuss their vision for SOHO we had an opportunity to tour the news there and building in my ward that’s recently opened up and created 65 new units of housing out there. And they were discussing in general terms what their vision for SOHO was and why it was so important for the city. And having that background information was really helpful for me in seeing this application when it did appear on our agenda. I’ve got lots of confidence in the partners in this application and all of the partners.

I know the Italian seniors projects work in the East End as well and the huge benefit that they have brought by helping address veterans homelessness at residence or TONA. I know a residence of Victoria in this proposal will likewise be a benefit to the community and those who need a space to call home but all of the partners in well and Zarin and the others, they’ve done great work already and that gives me lots of confidence that they’ll move forward on this appropriately. And I really like the approach that they’ve taken with the shared underground parking. It actually reminds me a little bit about the shared underground parking we have here at City Hall and there can be a benefit to that kind of approach where more than one building is able to use the parking space.

So I think they’ve got a really good application here. I’m really excited to move it and I’m excited to see them get shovels in the ground and get moving on this because we need that housing badly and the sooner we’re starting to put people in those buildings and calling it home, the better I think for not just our core but for the entire city. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments from committee members, nice.

Chair, I have my hand up. No, go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much.

You know, this is such an unprecedented project, vision solo and they call themselves the vision solo alliance for a very good reason because we’ve pulled so many partners in to make this work. And frankly, Chair, it works, honestly, it works at every level from the standpoint of solid housing, affordable housing, community groups and carrying London groups coming together and outside London groups within well. But I’d like to give a shout out to the partners that are involved in this and I think they are deserving by name, homes unlimited, Chelsea Green, London Affordable Housing Foundation, Indwell, Zarin, Residence of Victoria. I’d also like to give a shout out to the food bank who has contributed $1 million for this project as well.

So it goes beyond just these six primary partners and I believe you will see more organizations coming in to help support this amazing project. And you heard earlier, I believe from the gentleman from the Zimla Cabral, unprecedented. And that’s a great word. This is an example of what can happen across this country when like-minded organizations come together for a greater good.

And I have to say how proud I am of all of them. I’d like to thank those six organizations, the food bank and others who have played such big parts. I’m absolutely supportive of these amendments to get us to the next stage and look forward to us moving along and getting these ready in 2024. It goes a long way for our city’s committed goal that all of council supported for the 3,000 affordable housing units.

And I couldn’t be more proud. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Any other comments? If I may committee, I’ll just make a few from the chair. And I want to just add to Mayor Holder’s comments. I really do want to thank the collaboration of the partners and stakeholders in the community coming together.

I definitely see this as a unique application and very supportive of the technical amendments coming forward in the recommendation. I do want to also say a number of years ago when we looked at all the London Health Science buildings and what buildings needed to stay and how they could be preserved. I think this is also a good news story for the heritage of this area and how these buildings will be respectful of the heritage. And just to add the importance of the need for affordable housing, not just affordable housing, we know there’s a number of affordable housing units but also there will be affordable housing units for lower income people to take advantage of.

And I think it’s really important to identify that need in the community and to see this intensification and the so-ho development is just so exciting. I want to thank the stakeholders for allowing to have the two open houses and the community coming together, just working all together. It’s just such a great collaboration and added to that. We hopefully can see this development coming to us in the near future.

So with that committee members, if we can vote? Carry vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. I think we’ll go to committee members.

It’s 6.30. How’s everyone feeling? We have the next application is the site plan on this. If we can go forward with that, or we can take a break now, I’m open to comments.

I don’t, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Knowing that we’ve got the next item is related to the same properties. I’m wondering if we could maybe hear that and then perhaps entertain maybe a 15 minute recess just for a quick body break after we’ve dealt with 3.5.

I second that. Thank you for that. I don’t think we could just move forward. I just wanted to get the feel of committee members since it is 6.30 and we’ve been here for a while.

So moving forward to the site plan public participation meeting on 370 South Street and 124 Colburn Street Committee. I’d like to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillyer, Mayor Holder. Yes, sorry, I vote yes, thank you.

Close in the vote, the motion carries 6-0. I’d like to go to staff. Is there a brief presentation? I know we’ve just heard one, but this is the site plan process.

Good evening, Chair. It’s like Maitland again. I do have a presentation. I can make this brief given we’re well and we’re familiar with the site following the previous.

I’d appreciate that, thank you. Okay, so this is a second application. This application is to address the H5 holding provision on the old Victoria Hospital lands. Again, 370 South Street and 124 Colburn site plan application 2181, the application again by Vision SoHo Alliance.

There is a PowerPoint presentation available online for folks to follow along with. The complete site plan again is a proposal for seven buildings. Two of them are conversions of existing heritage buildings and then five new buildings. So starting in the Northwest is a development by Holmes Unlimited at the corner of Waterloo and Hill Street, five stories in height with a total unit count of 94 units.

The site plan for this one is available on slide four. The next building over is Chelsea Green with frontage onto Hill Street. Again, five stories in height, a unit count of 80 units and the site plan is available on slide six. At the corner of Hill Street and Colburn Street, the Northeast corner of the block is the London Affordable Housing Foundation building, five stories in height and a total unit count of 80 units.

The site plan for that proposed building is on slide eight. On the Southwest corner of the block at the corner of Waterloo and South Street is the existing Victoria Health Sciences building that’s proposed for redevelopment by Indwell with a dwelling count of 80 units. The site plan for that is on slide 10. The next building along South Street is six stories in height with a total of 18 units to be developed by Zaren.

The site plan for that is on slide 12. The final one for the 370 South Street block is the whole Memorial building. That’s an existing building proposed for conversion into 42 units. This one is proposed to be completed by Indwell and the site plan for that one is on slide 14.

It’s notable here that the War Memorial building entrance will face into what is the Soho Civic space, which you’ll see at the bottom of that site plan. At 124 Colburn Street is the residence of Victoria building to be developed by the Italian seniors project. This one has functionally what they’re referring to for their purposes is two buildings, but they function as a single building. The Northern building is five stories in height fronting Hill Street with 22 units and then the Southern unit building is the 11 story portion with 158 units.

There’s a site plan for that available on slide 16 with elevations on slide 17 and the landscape plan on slide 18. I’ve also included at the end of the presentation the full site for reference. Thank you. Thank you.

Any technical questions or staff? I see none. I’d like to go to the applicant. Good evening, again, Madam Chair.

It’s Harry Frucio’s from Zalenka, Prammo. Again, just on behalf of the Vision Soho Alliance and again, we have an attendant this evening, Mr. Ron Robbottom, as well as Jim Sheffield and Tim Wickens of Nicholson Sheffield to answer any questions of any technical nature. This application, the site plan is really intended to implement the site specific zoning that was just previously considered a few moments ago by planning committee.

Again, just want to thank staff for working very diligently with us to process the site plan application to bring it forward tonight. We’ve already received the first round of comments which we’re working through right now to prepare a next submission. Depending on the nature of comments we received tonight, we hope to get that resubmissioned very shortly and deep the process moving. At this point in time, we have nothing to add.

It was a very in-depth presentation provided by Mr. Maitland, so we’re just able to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Does anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment? Ms. Makeding is still on the line. Ms.

Makeding, who’s still there? Oh, she mentioned that her comments would— Yeah, I’m sorry. Thank you. I had my back turned, but I really did, to me, it made sense.

I thought I’d be redundant if I spoke twice. Thank you for being here. And you’re probably as hungry as I am, so I won’t say anything more. Thank you for being here.

Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment to the site plan process on this application? I see none. I will go to the committee to close the PPM. And with that, Councillor Lewis, are we good?

Okay, just to make sure there’s no one else from the public that would like to make a comment. I see none. I’ll go to the committee to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Lehman.

Although, yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that committee, Councillor Lehman. I’ll move the committee or the staff recommendation.

And I’ll second, Chair. And if there are no comments from the committee, we can move forward to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, we will take a break for 15 minutes, so we should be back to five to seven, or five to six 55.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Do we need to vote on that as well, or can we do a hand vote? So we will recess until six 55. Everyone in favor?

Thank you. We’ll see you back shortly. Any more severe weather for brief, already stretched? Welcome back everyone to the planning meeting.

Next scheduled item is 3.6, which is an application at 3.095 and 3.105 Boswick Road. It’s the Talbot Village, phase seven. Public participation meeting, I am looking to committee to open. Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

I’ll vote yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Brief presentation, it’s a brief verbal presentation from a planner, Michael Clark. This is the first time he will be here doing the presentation.

So welcome, Mr. Clark. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’ll just give a brief presentation, kind of going through the report, shown on page 391 of the agenda.

So to defend just south of Southdale Road West and west of Boswick Road, this is to the north and east of previous phases of the Talbot Village, at communities, this is phase seven of the Talbot Village subdivision. The subject lands in total are about 23 and a half hectares, of which 12 and a quarter are proposed for development through this current subdivision application. The remaining, and those lands are on the eastern portion of the subject lands. The remaining 11.2 hectares or so on the western half, they are proposed to remain in urban reserve zoning, pending further analysis of the environmental features on those lands.

The plan of subdivision, shown on page 393 of the agenda, includes 168 lots for single attached dwellings, three blocks for townhouse dwellings, and three linear parkland blocks along the southern portion of the subdivision. To permit the full build out of all the lots proposed, they’ll need to complete the connection to of a regiment road, which is a neighborhood connector in the London plan, to Southdale Road West. This will require coordination between the applicants of these lands and the adjacent property owner and the city who compensate for the loss of a small wetland that is near the proposed intersection. Holding version and draft conditions of draft plan approval have been applied to the northerly portion of the subject lands to require this connection and provide adequate connectivity from both the transportation and water servicing perspective.

Additional environmental analysis will be required before either that wetland is relocated, and so before either the northern portion of these lots get developed or the development application comes forward for the urban reserve lands to the west. There’s a number of environmental features on those lands, including wetlands, which have been identified as provincially significant and a woodland. And so the proposed development gives vision buffers from those features until further study can be done. Road access is maintained for lands to the west, north and east, and to allow those future development of those lands to be integrated with this current phase of the subdivision.

As I mentioned, a parkland corridor is planned along the southern edge of the subdivision. This is near previous phases of the Talbot Village Community and will run east, west, kind of through the central portion of the Talbot Village Community. Through future development applications, the attention is to extend this corridor if possible, up to Talbot Park to the northwest and eventually over to towards the Bostwick Community Center to the east. Staff recommendation is to introduce a by-law to amend the zoning by-law, as shown on page 410 of the agenda, to permit the proposed uses and apply holding provisions to require the connection to south of the road west, plans with the design policies of the southwest area secondary plan, and that a subdivision agreement is executed and to advise the approval authority for the approval of the draft plan of subdivision.

As these are all consistent with the Pruncial Policy Statement, we’ll end in plan of the official plan and the southwest area secondary plan. I’m available to answer any questions if the committee has any. Thanks. Thank you, Mr.

Clark. Any technical questions with staff? I see none. I’d like to go to the applicant.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Committee. Casey Cole-Chickie from Zlinka Priemmo, speaking again. We have reviewed the staff report and we are in agreement with the recommendation to pass the draft plan as shown with conditions. We’d like to thank staff, particularly Michael Clark and Bruce Page for all their hard work on bringing this application forward tonight.

We look forward to moving forward with the detailed design of this next phase of the Talbot Village community. I’m available to answer any questions or comments that Planning Committee may have. Thank you. Thank you.

And I’d like to move on to the public now. Is there anyone here? I do not see anyone and I understand there is no one. So with that, I would like to ask one more time.

If there’s anyone here from the public here and see none. So I would like to go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by Councillor Hameau. Travel, yes, thanks.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, I would like to go to committee and maybe just before I do, I would like to go to Councillor Layman. If he could take over just so I can make a few comments, I am the Board Councillor. And I would like to hand over the chair.

Councillor Robinson and Chair, and I will look to you for comments. Thank you, Councillor Layman. And this is a development that started many, many years ago. And we’re into phase seven.

It’s good to see that development, this development coming forward. I do have a couple of questions of staff. I know that we didn’t see really very many comments from the public, but the one question that was asked was regarding the sanitary sewers. And I wonder if staff can just add a little bit more to the capacity and the availability for this development.

That will go through. Certainly, and through you, Mr. Chair. So the sanitary servicing for this area, it’s been, we’ve had a part of the Talbot Village Community Plan for probably going on about 20 years now.

The servicing strategy has been outlined in subsequent DC studies and background studies and over time recognizing that we are on phase seven of this development, those downstream sewers have been constructed in accordance with that plan. As this development moves forward as they move further north up towards the lands that front onto Southdale, we have retained a road connection at the West edge of the current phase, which would allow for full municipal services to connect into, so water sanitary storms as well as the road. So the application that fronts onto Southdale would have an ability to tie into that sewer at that time. Thank you, Councillor Hoffman.

Yeah, thank you for that. I think it’s important that we know that there’s a connection there onto Southdale. And if I can just further ask another question, regarding that connection to the, to Southdale, it was mentioned that there is going to be a loss of a wetland, if I can just have a little bit further, a further clarification as to what is happening at that intersection in Southdale. Go to staff for the impact of that wetland area.

Certainly, and through you, Mr. Chair. So that wetland was, when we completed the Southdale Road widening EA, that wetland was actually identified for removal and compensation. So we have three different property owners at this location.

So it’s at the far east side of northeast corner at this site, and staff and the applicant have actually worked through a process whereby we’re providing compensation for the wetland. Ideally, it’ll be somewhere on this site, this development as well, but we still have to work through that. A couple of the environmental studies need to be finished off on the west half where the UR is, in order for us to properly locate it. And then through some of the draft conditions, and we’re anticipating an application from the land owner at Southdale in the near future, we should be able to work out an approach where we can address the city’s need, the Southdale need, and then the need of this applicant as well.

Councilor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Page. I think that’s very helpful to me, that there is going to be further conversations around the compensation of these lands.

And I understand that we’re going to need further studies when it comes to undertaking the woodlands and the tree areas, the limit of the impacts and the environment protectionist is still to be considered. I will be supporting this zoning application for approval. It’s a big development, but it’s a needed development that is, like I said, phase seven. It started back in 1999, and here we are.

It’s good to see this coming to an end sooner than later, and we’ll be supporting the recommendation. So with that, those are my comments. Thank you, Councillor, and I will turn the chair back to you with no one on the speaker’s list. Thank you.

And with that, I’ll look to committee for a motion. Councillor Layman. Yeah, I’ll make a motion to move the staff recommendation. Councillor McMillan, seconds.

Thank you. Just with your microphone. I’ll second. Thank you.

I’ll third chair. And if we can proceed to vote. I’ll third chair, I’m in. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. We move on to 3.7, which is our last public participation meeting of the evening for 1453 and 1459 Oxford Street East and 648 and to 656. Here’s what avenue I look to the committee. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman.

To open at the public participation meeting. Traveled, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. With that, I would like to go to staff for a presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Catherine Matin in planning and development. Please note there is a staff presentation, which commences on page 484 of the added agenda. And now just moving on to slide two of the staff presentation.

The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of Oxford Street East and Airswood Avenue. The site consists of eight individual parcels, each developed with a single detached dwelling. The site has a frontage of 70 meters along Oxford, a depth of 98 meters along Airswood and an area of 0.68 hectares. Surrounding land uses include Fanshawe College to the north, high-rise residential to the east, and low-rise residential to the south and west.

Next slide. In the London plan, the four properties fronting on Oxford are in the rapid transit corridor place type while the four fronting on Airswood are in the neighborhood’s place type on a neighborhood street. The applicant has requested that the entire site be interpreted to be within the rapid transit corridor. And the site is also subject to the rapid transit corridor protected major transit station area policies and the policies for near-campus neighborhoods.

The rapid transit corridor contemplates a range of uses, including residential and retail, and encourages mixed use buildings. A maximum intensity of 12 stories with bonusing is contemplated, and where sites are located within 100 meters of a rapid transit station, increased intensities may be considered up to 16 stories with bonusing. However, it is important to note that the site is not located within 100 meters of a station. The site is designated low-density residential in the 1989 official plan, which contemplates residential intensification up to a maximum density of 75 units per hectare.

The site is also subject to policies for near-campus neighborhoods. And lastly, the majority of the site is currently zoned an R1/6 zone with the corner property zoned a compound R1/6/OC4, which permits offices and existing buildings on this portion of the site. Next slide. The application was initially submitted in September 2020, at which time the applicant had requested to redesignate the lands to high-density residential in the 1989 official plan, and rezoned to a compound R9/7 bonus and NSA3 zone to facilitate the development of an 18-story mixed-use apartment building with 259 residential units, 491 square meters of commercial space, and 283 parking spaces.

A mixed-use density of 390 units per hectare and a building height of 16 meters was proposed. An amendment to the London plan was not initially requested. The originally proposed development was an L-shaped building with step-backs at four and 14 stories. And through the circulation of the initial application, both staff and the public had expressed concern with respect to the intensity and form.

Next slide. In May 2021, the application was amended to propose a 24-story mixed-use apartment building with a slightly higher commercial GFA of 500 square meters. No changes to the unit counter parking were made, and the amended application included a request to add a specific policy to the rapid transit quarter place type to permit the proposed intensity. The amended development proposal is an L-shaped building with a 24-story tower at the corner and heights transitioning to 14 stories along Oxford and 14 and nine stories at the rear of the building.

A greater variation in podium height was also provided, and the amended application maintained the request to rezone to a compound R97 bonus and NSA3 zone. Next slide. As previously mentioned, the site is located further than 100 meters from a rapid transit station. Therefore, a maximum height of 12 stories with a type two bonus is contemplated in the rapid transit quarter place type.

If re-designated to high density residential in the 1989 official plan, a maximum density of 150 units per hectare, excluding provisions for bonusing would be contemplated. While staff agree that the site is suitable for a higher density mixed-use redevelopment, there are major concerns with respect to the proposed intensity and form. The proposed intensity is significantly greater than the existing and planned context for the corridor, and although the building offers varying heights to provide some transition from the tallest portion, the mass is very heavy and imposes on both streetscapes and the neighboring low-rise properties. The proposed development does not provide a low or mid-rise transition at the rear of the site, adjacent to the existing low-rise residential neighborhood.

And staff have recommended several refinements to mitigate some of the form-based concerns, which have not been incorporated into the design to date. Next slide. The applicant has proposed affordable housing, public parking and exceptional building and site design in return for the increased height and density. Staff is of the opinion that the limited range of proposed bonusable features is not commensurate for an intensity twice the maximum contemplated by policy.

Further, the proposed height was requested as a capital H77, which would not actually tie the proposed building height to the bonus zone. Staff have concerns with the extent of relief and number of special provisions needed to facilitate the proposed development, as this can be an indicator of overdevelopment. Next slide. Staff have concerns regarding the appropriateness of the full range of uses permitted by the requested NSA3 zone, and that the compounded zone would not necessarily require the uses to be within a mixed use apartment building.

A specific area policy to the 1989 official plan to permit the proposed commercial uses was not requested. Therefore, these uses and the NSA3 zone are not in conformity. Next slide. Upon review of both the initial and amended applications, engineering staff had advised that the proposed development would result in a population that would exceed the existing sanitary sewer capacity.

Staff have advised that the owner must demonstrate an outlet with adequate available capacity, either by way of a lower proposed density or upgrades to the sanitary sewers. And moving to the last slide, the proposed development is not consistent with the provincial policy statement and does not conform to neither the London plan nor the 1989 official plan. The proposed development and requested zoning represent an over-intensification of the site and the facility services and matters proposed through the bonus zone are not commensurate for the requested height and density. Lastly, the existing sanitary sewer does not have sufficient capacities to support the proposed density.

And as such, it has recommended the requested amendments be refused. Thank you, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any technical questions from committee?

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to our staff, I do want to ask, in particular, about the third reason for refusal in subsection A, which is the sanitary sewer capacity concerns. And so through you to our staff, I’m wondering if you can provide an overview of where things are with the sanitary sewers, not just for this site-specific application, but recognizing that this is a rapid transit corridor and very near to a protected, I’m going to get the acronym wrong. So the primary transit corridor area or the protected transit station area, apologies on getting the acronym wrong, but if staff could indicate, because I’m concerned if we don’t have capacity for one building today on a long or rapid transit corridor, how are we going to address future intensification along this corridor, which is one of the primary goals of the London Plan and of our secondary plans in terms of encouraging intensification along designated rapid transit and primary transit corridors.

So I’m a little concerned to hear that there’s not capacity for this today. So if I could just ask you through you to staff, Madam Chair. If I can go to Ms. Matton or Mr.

Corby to address the capacity. Yeah, through you Madam Chair, smile of Shara Management Development Engineering, site plan, the entire outlet for this development is the 250 millimeters at the second road. And that one is now currently is running at 98% capacity. So with whatever the development proposed, that will bring us to above 100%, which is not supported by us or the engineering groups.

So again, back to your question, Councillor. About the area, this is mainly for this building and the surrounding, but not everything along the, so there are different other outlets. And my understanding that our engineering staff, they are doing and conducting very condensed study about the area and if there is any upgrade required. I hope I answered your question, Councillor.

Okay, I think, and I’m just gonna summarize really quickly and make sure that I’m understanding correctly then, along that corridor between Highbury and Fanshawe College along Oxford. My understanding then is that there are multiple different outlets and that the capacity issue is with the outlet in particular that this building would be connecting to, is that correct? Absolutely, yes. Okay, thank you for that, that’s helpful.

That’s it for my technical questions. Thank you, Councillor Loose. And I see no other technical questions. Yes, one question is a good chair, please.

Mayor Holder. Yeah, thanks very much. Ms. Madden indicated that it wasn’t within 100 meters, how far is it, if I could ask, just to get a sense of that distance, please?

Are you referring to the connection for the sewers? Chair, Ms. Madden indicated that the property itself was not within 100 property itself, not the, not a sewer station, so I’m going to go here. Thank you, I’m still stuck on sewers.

Please. Ms. Madden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, I’m just going to take an approximate measurement.

I don’t have an exact figure for that distance. However, the closest station is located at Oxford and London Lane, which at the closest point of this site is approximately 300 meters away. Thank you for that, that was my question. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll move on to the applicant. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can.

Fantastic. Good evening, Madam Chair. Yes, good evening, Mr. Champagne.

Just to let you know, you have up to five minutes and please proceed. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this application to planning committee. I’m here this evening with Mr.

Kolchicki and Mr. Ferusio from Zilinka, for EMO, as they will be able to answer any technical questions that the committee may have. I would also like to thank staff for their time and effort on this file. I’ll begin by addressing the residential growth in the neighborhood where this development is being proposed.

It is well recognized that the demand for housing in this neighborhood has been nothing short of explosive. Between 2017 and 2020, Fanshawe College achieved almost 28% growth in their enrollment. However, over the same period, the level of housing stock has grossly failed to keep pace. In fact, virtually no new housing inventory has been added.

Looking forward, and as documented in the strategic mandate agreement between Fanshawe College and the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities, both the province and the college have entered into an agreement to increase the international enrollments by almost 2,700 students over the five-year period of 2020 to 2025. This translates into a 53% growth in Fanshawe’s current level international enrollments. To put this into perspective, the rental under the rental licensing policy allowed within this neighborhood, the equivalent of 883 new houses would be need to be constructed in order to meet this demand. Our development will provide relief in the way of 616 new beds for the neighborhood housing inventory.

Sadly, however, this development will only meet 23% of the growth to be realized in the next five years. The equivalent of four new developments with the same residential intensity as our proposal is required to accommodate the coming growth. And this is without any consideration to the existing shortage within the neighborhood housing stock. More than ever, the student sprawl is having a marked impact on the city as more students are being pushed further outwards into non-student neighborhoods in efforts to find accommodation.

Unlike other generations, generation Z students bring a unique set of needs and lifestyle preferences, and their housing preferences are just as unique. This demographic is not interested in single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, private apartments, or traditional dorms. Instead, students seek out places to live that offer increased safety and privacy, along with smart connected and technology-enabled living spaces to enable their studies. In-house bike and car sharing services, as well as in-house recycling programs are now the norm, along with other amenities which are specifically designed to support their educational studies.

Today, students seek four or eight month Tennessee agreements, not one-year leases, where leases which are not aligned to their academic calendar, access to public transportation, proximity to campus, and affordability are paramount in the choice of where they choose to live. And it’s these three pillars upon which our proposal has been built. When addressing London’s housing requirements, we need to distinguish that London doesn’t just need greater housing supply, but we also need the right type of supply. Our vision for this development utilizes a proven model of purpose-built student accommodation, a model that has been adopted around the world and widely perceived as a preferred housing option for post-secondary education.

This form of housing is purposely designed as an affordable alternative housing option, with rents typically being 2/3 to 3/4 of the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in the same market. In addition to offering London an alternative form of housing, this application also proposes 20 units to be dedicated to the housing development corporation to address the shortage of affordable units in the city. This neighborhood is now in a very precarious situation, a situation of tremendous imbalance between the number of residents and London’s ability to create sufficient housing stock. We firmly believe that our recommendation to lower the height and unit count will only be interpreted as a failure in which London did not appropriately respond to the housing needs of the community, not only by failing to capitalize on the amount of affordable alternative units the project has to offer, but also failing to protect the sustainability of the neighborhood.

In closing, Madam Chairperson, we encourage Planning Committee to recognize and think differently about how the New York campus neighborhood has grown and what truly is required to protect its health and sustainability. This application offers the opportunity to create new housing for London and relieve some of the pressure in this neighborhood. It is our hope that committee members here tonight recognize that student accommodation is a very significant component to London’s housing crisis, sufficiently distinct to warrant unique consideration. London’s housing shortage affects all parts of London, but it is even more disproportionate in the Fanshawe campus neighborhood.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Champagne. I’d like to go to the public now.

I see there aren’t, there’s no one on the line and no one in the committee rooms. I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment. If you’re in C-none, I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lame, seconded by.

Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. I will go to Councillor Lewis, but I just want to remind the committee that this is a recommendation coming from South to refuse this application. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, again, in the interest of focusing our discussion, I am actually going to move a referral on this application. I’ve had some conversations with both the applicant and with our staff today and I’ve asked the clerk to circulate some language for colleagues to consider so that it’s there in your inboxes in writing as well, that we would refer this to civic administration to undertake the following actions and report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. A, to work with the applicant to ensure the appropriate framework is in place for the provision of affordable housing units at 70% of the average market rate for 50 years.

B, to work with the applicant to determine options to resolve the sanitary sewer capacity issues. And C, to work with the applicant to revise the application to consolidate the subject properties as being within the rapid transit corridor. It being noted that this is not withstanding the 100 meter policy guideline adjacent to a rapid transit station for the purpose of developing scale and form suitable to such locations. And then I’ll offer some thoughts on that if I have a seconder.

Looking for a seconder, Councillor Anu, seconds. And the referrals on the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So if I can just share a few thoughts with colleagues.

It was noted in the application or in our report that the framework for the affordable housing is actually not formally in place with HDC. And I think it is very important that we get that in place ahead of time. I did indicate that I’ve had discussions with both our staff and the applicant that I was uncomfortable with the 85% market rate proposed. And I believe that the 70% for 50 years is now consistent with what our HDC staff are typically asking for now.

And I understand from the applicant’s agent that they’re amenable to discussing what that would look like as well. I think it’s B is very clear. We need sanitary sewers that work to service this building. And obviously, if we’re already at 98% capacity, some alternative has to be found there.

And then see in terms of recognizing these properties as within the rapid transit corridor. I appreciate that staff have recognized, I believe it’s four of the eight. But I also recognize that when someone purchases and consolidates a bunch of properties for the purpose of a single development, the intent is for them to be treated together. And I think that that’s only fair.

But I also think that it’s important for us to note that the 100 meter policy guideline for proximity to a rapid transit station. And I say this very clearly to staff, this is on us as a council, this is not on you. But when we agreed to such a policy, I think we’re really handcuffing ourselves. When I take a look at the East London link, once we touch Highbury Ave, other than the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands, which of course are in the hands of another developer and being worked on, there’s not a lot of opportunity for intensification within 100 meters.

I’m also cognizant of the fact that for London Transit, standards are stops at approximately 500 meters apart. So even in conventional transit, the 300 meter distance that our staff indicated roughly has an approximate for this from the rapid transit station, would kind of put it halfway between stops if we were talking about a conventional transit route. And I think that when we think about walkability, I’m mindful of the fact that 100 meters, Maggie, McNeil can swim that in under a minute. I think that that’s a very close proximity for walking distance.

And so notwithstanding that guideline, I think that we should be looking at this as walkable to the transit station. I’m also cognizant of the fact that it’s pretty much right across the road from Fanshawe College. It’s going to be walkable for many students. I also want to say I really like what the applicant has done with a couple pieces of this application.

I like the fact that there’s some public parking considered for the rapid transit lines, because we don’t as have a park and ride identified for the East London link. And I think that’s a key component of making sure that transit’s a viable option for some people is that it’s only part of their commute, not necessarily their whole commute. I like the fact that they’re amenable to affordable housing. Even knowing that with a student demographic, their market rents are probably going to be a bit lower than what you might see where the target demographic was perhaps seniors or young families.

So again, I think that there’s some real positives here. And I also finally want to note that this tower has gone up from the original application, but I recognize what’s happening here. And we’ve discussed it at multiple meetings, the marshmallow effect. When you push a building down, it tends to fatten out so that the developer can still get the efficiency, the economy of scale.

When you want a building squeezed in, it tends to have the effect of pushing it up again so that they can get the economies of scale. And while this might be taller than perhaps is appropriate in this particular area, I still think that if we work with them, there’s a way to find a solution here that brings intensification to the area, but works within a reasonable framework of being in a rapid transit corridor, providing some affordable housing and being able to be serviced properly by our sanitary sewers. So I hope that colleagues will support this. I will finish by saying, intensification in the east end is urgently needed.

We should make no bones about that. And if we are not providing intensification on sites like this, what is going to happen is as the college population grows, we are going to continue to see the spread out and the disappearance of single family homes for rental units where we are having issues of five, six, eight, 10 students living in what used to be a single family home. And that’s not ideal for the fabric of a neighborhood either. In fact, we know from near campus neighborhood policies that we brought in to address those exact situations.

It’s bad for the neighborhood. So I think if we’re looking for an opportunity to address both student housing and intensification along rapid transit lines, we’re heading in the right direction here. We just need to give our staff and the developer an opportunity to go back and forth a little bit and address this in a manner that resolves those particular problems. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

Just before I go to other committee members for comments, I would like to go to Mr. Barrett with his thoughts and comments on the referral back. Thank you, through Madam Chair. And I apologize, I didn’t want to get in on the debate.

I just wanted some clarification on the third point. As I see that it’s written, it’s making reference to the proximity or the issue of the proximity to the station stop in the consideration of the properties being within the rapid transit corridor. I just want to clarify that the distance to the station stop would not be a driving matter on whether or not we considered the properties being within the rapid transit corridor. The interpretation that we would be seeking would be that council would be satisfied that those properties that have the frontage on Airswood Place and our consistent primarily of those single family homes would be interpreted as being within the corridor.

The location then within the quarters to whether or not it’s within 100 meters only speaks to an increased level of intensity. If it’s interpreted within the RTC, then we would be looking at the rapid transit corridor policy. So I just wanted to get some clarification as to whether or not this 100 meter policy meant anything or what its purpose was in this referral. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you to Mr. Barrett, my understanding is that the proximity to a rapid transit station does have a bearing on what staff can consider in terms of bonus recommendations and changes the consideration from being limited to 12 stories to being as much as 16 stories, which is still lower than the 24 here. So if I’m wrong, certainly I hope Mr.

Barrett will indicate that, but I understand it’s the 100 meter policy further restricts the height if it’s deemed to be outside of the 100 meters. Thank you for the chair. I appreciate that clarification. So essentially it’s consideration that not withstanding its proximity that opportunities for bonusing also be as part of our discussions be considered.

If I may, that’s more the frame of the referral. That would be my intention through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Barrett, yes. Thank you for that clarification.

And if I could go to committee members for any comments, Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, Chair. I’ve been looking at this and I must admit, I was probably hoping a little bit more from the referral than I heard. Normally when we refer something back through to staff, it’s because we think it’s within the parameters or getting closer to, I think what’s reasonable for an area.

No one’s gonna argue that the area needs additional residential requirements be the unique as Mr. Champagne has suggested or not. But even, and I say this with the deepest respect to my colleague and friend, Councillor Lewis, with his Superman shirt, I’m not even sure that Superman could do a 24 story leap in a single bound, but maybe he could. So I’m looking at this and just trying to fathom it because I didn’t hear, and perhaps I misheard from the Councillor, any reference to changing the density.

We may have a gap in that area, but it doesn’t have to be solved to the extent with this, what I deem to be an excessively high amount of density if it doesn’t work for the applicant from a for-profit standpoint. I understand that, I sincerely do. Everyone’s entitled to make money on their projects and programs. But you know, even with the bonus scene that I heard referenced, and you heard Mr.

Barrett talk about this as well, we don’t get close to the applicants request in terms of what they need. I heard several references to Fanshawe, but I want to note that Fanshawe was one through their lawyer to object to this particular application because for several reasons, scale, height, intensity, and that’s significant to me. And so I’m, I try to be mindful and try to find the way that this can work. I know the staff have concerns, Chair, with the extent of relief and the number of special provisions needed to facilitate this development.

I don’t see an outdoor amenity in there. I think there is a limited space for landscaping. I think there’s a number of issues here that I’m not sure how far we can go with this application where it doesn’t limit density. So if that is not part of it, I’m afraid at this point I struggle to support it.

I wish I could. I just struggle to support trying to get to where we are. And at this stage, I would look to defeat the referral and support staff for commendation. And I wish my thoughts could be different on that.

Thanks. Thank you, Mayor Holder. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And it’s not, it certainly was not my intention to cross debate through you, but I just want to draw to the Mayor’s attention the end of part C of the referral. Which is for the purpose of developing scale and form suitable to such locations. So I think that your concern around and heightened density is captured in that. I do not think that it’s certainly not my intent to indicate through this referral that I’m going to support 24 stories.

That it’s to send this back to our staff to work with the applicant on something that is consistent with our rapid transit corridor, which we’ve heard staff say the current proposal is not. And to focus on the sanitary sewer issues and lock in that affordable housing. I don’t, through you, Madam Chair, disagree with the Mayor that the density needs to be considered here. But that was the reason for the inclusion of for the purpose of developing scale and form suitable to such locations.

I think it’s more helpful to continue from where we are and hopefully get to a place where it can be supported than tossing it out and starting over again. So that’s why I’m hoping colleagues will support the referral. But of course, his worship is free to do as he will, as all members of Committee are. There are any other comments?

Councillor Laman. Yeah, I share a frustration on this one too, ‘cause I see both sides. It’s a tough one. And I understand the applicant’s point of view and he’s makes some very good points about the future of housing need for a growth of Fanshawe.

But however, my biggest concern here is that it’s not height so much as it is density that has been touched on and we’re not close here. It’s twice as much as staff is recommending. And if I’m not confident that a referral here would bring the developer and staff closer to resolution because the developer did go away and come back and density really wasn’t addressed. Some form I think was addressed, but not on the major concerns.

And then there’s sanitation, you know, it’s, yeah. Why is density a big thing? Well, it’s because of the infrastructure around the area. Will sanitation be addressed at some point?

Probably, but not at this time. I understand Councillor Lewis’ point about being on rapid transit line, you know, a couple extra hundred yards. It doesn’t seem like a thing. I understand his comments about intensity in the east end here.

So I get the purpose behind wanting to keep this alive. But to be honest, I’m struggling with this. So be interested to hear other committee comments before we make that decision. Yeah, if the committee will allow me, I will make a few comments from the chair.

I don’t see anyone else with their hand raised. So I won’t be supporting the referral. And for a number of reasons, but speaking to the referral only, I’m not sure that if you support that, I would think if you support this referral back, you’re also supporting the height and intensity of a 24-story building. That is my concern.

I know it speaks to for the purpose of developing scale and form suitable to such locations that I think that can be done through supporting staff’s recommendation and further conversations can be had in all these areas. So I am just gonna speak to the referral right now and then we’ll do it one step at a time. And with that, there’s a motion for a referral. Chair, I vote no.

Hold on, just before we vote, I would like to go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I realize it may not change colleagues’ minds in terms of how they vote here, but I do hear what people are saying. And I’m certainly willing in that part C, not just form and scale, but density appropriate to designation as well.

So I’m happy to add density into that amendment in part C, which has now disappeared from our big board here, but I think that’s ‘cause the clerks might be kicked out of the E-Scribe. So are you asking for a change to C to add density? Yes, I would add all add density into C if— If we can just take a moment. So staff can review the referral and I assume you have support from your secondary as well.

Maryam, are you supporting that? Yes, please, for the sake of the public, it will be read by the clerk. All right, C, now read. Work with the applicant to revise the application to consolidate the subject properties as being within the rapid transit corridor.

It being noted that this is not withstanding the 100 meter policy guideline adjacent to a rapid transit station for the purpose of developing scale, density, and form suitable to such locations. Jeremy, I asked the question. Mary Holder, proceed. Thanks very much.

I have my, I’m still in a conundrum. I hear the motion and that presumably is the spirit in which our staff who do who work hard on this would look to take an original application. And now we see the struggles with this application, but this is basically where it seems how I’ve read this with some slight reference, which I appreciate Councillor Lewis having done with regard to the rapid transit corridor. There’s an old Jack Nicholson movie that used to say why can’t we all just get along?

And I would say, why would this not have been put in place if this is what the app and truly wanted? Or will this just be an exercise in the staff saying, you know what we want? If we make some accommodation because of the location, are we gonna get what we want? I’d like to have confidence in that, but I’m not sure that I can say that I do.

And I say that again with the deepest respect. I’m not one that turns down applications, but I find this a very frustrating moment in time. And it feels a little bit like, what are we trying to do? There’s some policy not on the fly, but we’re trying to find a way to make this work.

And if the applicant had wanted to make this work, why would that not have been done? I say this with respect to the applicant. And their consultant, who knows how this all works, why would that not have been done at the front end? Instead of trying to negotiate on the floor council, I’m just a bit surprised about this, that’s all.

Thank you, Mayor Holder. And if they were in further comments from the committee, I, Councillor Layman, please proceed. Yeah, and I know where the mayor is going on this. I guess I’d like to ask staff when working with the applicant on this, I know the answer, I assume I know the answer, was it made abundantly clear one of the major issues was density in this location?

Is that a question to staff? That’s a question through you, Chair, too, staff. Through you, Madam Chair, this is Catherine Mountain. The discussions and concerns surrounding the intensity were expressed to the applicant beginning at the pre-consultation stage.

And then again, upon receipt of the application for the 18-story tower, and then again, upon receipt of the amended application for 24 stories. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. And if the committee will allow me, I’m not sure where this vote is going to go.

So I will make all my comments to this referral then. And I will not be supporting the referral, to me, it’s supporting the 24-story building. And there are many, many reasons why I am, if it ever gets to the recommendations from staff, that I’ll be supporting the staff. And I think it’s fair to say that we all agree that this area is suitable for high-density development.

We have a 14-story right next to this application which is asking for 24, a big difference in terms of how we proceed with our built form of one building going down to the next building. The Rapid Transit Corridor Boundary Interpretation is a concern for me. I think it is not supported. The compatibility, like I mentioned from 14 to 24, it’s the commercial use in this building is also a concern that I have.

The public facilities, the amenities, there are many, many features that are still in question. And not understanding the affordable housing, we don’t even have an application in front of us to even support the 20 units. The BRT spaces, already it’s difficult for, you know, it’s not used for bonusing. The design, I think the applicant has done a good job coming, making some changes.

The Senator, so is another question. Regardless, if this referral is supported, there are still many, many issues that will remain. And I would encourage the applicant to work with staff. If this is defeated to continue those conversations, I think we all know and the need in this area for density.

But it’s not this for me. So with that, I will not be supporting the referral. Mayor Holder, may I please confirm you’re still a no? Yes, I’m sorry, I was waiting for the chair to call the vote formally since I don’t have that in front of me.

I am no. Closing the vote, the motion fails to four. And so we’ll move on to the recommendation from staff. Mover, and I would be happy to second.

I’ll move the recommendation. And if I’m allowed, I would like to second. I think I hear some voices. Just confirmed you were allowed, Chair.

Not that you needed my permission. We can open the vote. Probably yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

So we move on to items of direction. We are to receive and approve the 11th report of the London Advisory Committee of Heritage. I know we had three consent items from this report. Already addressed earlier on this evening.

I couldn’t get a motion from committee. I’ll move, Chair. And I need a seconder, Councillor Hillier. Mayor Holder, the vote is open.

Thank you, Chair. I get lazy waiting for the chair to say we called the vote. I vote yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

I’m moving on to number five. I need deferred matters, additional business. I see none. And with that, I will look to the committee for a chairman, Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Humu.

And with that, do we do a hand vote? Or we can do a hand vote? I want to thank the committee for a thoughtful and considerate conversation that we’ve had here tonight. Thank you.

And I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.