Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

Planning and Environment Committee

December 13, 2021, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:02 PM, with Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair, Councillors S. Lehman, M. Hamou and S. Lewis present and all other Members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Call to Order

1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

1.2   Election of Vice-Chair for the Term ending November 14, 2022

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Councillor S. Lehman BE ELECTED as Vice-Chair for the term ending November 14, 2022.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, and 2.7 to 2.11, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   355 Middleton Avenue (H-9363)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 355 Middleton Avenue H-9363

Moved by S. Hillier

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 355 Middleton Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 R5 (hh-100h-198R5-4(23)) and a Holding Residential Special Provision R6 (hh-100h-198R6-5(51)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R5 (R5-4(23)) and a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-5(51)) to remove the h, h-100 and h-198 holding provisions.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.2   890 Upperpoint Avenue (H-9392)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 890 Upperpoint Ave H-9392

Moved by S. Hillier

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 890 Upperpoint Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 R1 (h*R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.3   890 Upperpoint Avenue (P-9358)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 890 Upperpoint Ave P-9358

Moved by S. Hillier

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 Sifton Properties Ltd., to exempt Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 from Part-Lot Control:

a)   pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to registered subdivision agreements and are zoned Holding Residential R1 (h*R1-4) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits single detached dwellings;

b)   the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 as noted in clause a) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii)  that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered on a Block, and that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lots/Block in question.   (2021-D25)

Motion Passed

2.4   1478 Westdel Bourne (H-9411)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1478 Westdel Bourne H-9411

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Stantec Consulting c/o Amelia Sloan, relating to lands located at 1478 Westdel Bourne, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan,) to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (h-54-h-209-R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone TO a Residential R6/R8 Special Provision (R6-5(77)/R8-4(64)) Zone to remove the holding (h-54 and h-209) provisions.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.5   1235 Fanshawe Park Road West (H-9287)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West H-9287

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Calloway REIT (Fox Hollow) Inc., relating to lands located at 1235 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 R8 Special Provision (h-147-R8-4(39)) Zone and a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision/Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (h-147-R8-4(40)/ASA3(10)/ ASA6(4)/ASA8(5)) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(39)) Zone and a Residential R8 Special Provision/ Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (R8-4(40)/ASA3(10)/ASA6(4)/ASA8(5)) Zone to remove the holding (h-147) provision.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.7   1225 Hyde Park Road (H-9419)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1225 Hyde Park Road H-9419

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Motivity Land Incorporated, relating to the property located at 1225 Hyde Park Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Restricted Service Commercial RSC1, RSC3, and RSC5 (h-17*RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial RSC1, RSC3, and RSC5 (RSC1/RSC3/RSC5) Zone.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8   1150 Byron Baseline Road (H-9424)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1150 Byron Baseline H-9424

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by 2186121 Ontario Incorporated, relating to the property located at 1150 Byron Baseline Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 R5-7 Special Provision (h-5h-183R5-7(12)) Zone TO a Residential R5-7 Special Provision (R5-7(12)) Zone.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed

2.9   613 Superior Drive (33M-680)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 613 Superior Drive - 39T-05510 -33M-680 - Dispostion of School Site

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, 2047790 Ontario Inc., the owner of the potential school site located on the south side of Superior Drive, north of Sunningdale Road East, municipally know as 613 Superior Drive and legally described as Block 103 on Registered Plan 33M-641, BE ADVISED that the City has no interest in acquiring the said property for municipal purposes.   (2021-D09/S13)

Motion Passed

2.10   59 Albion Street (HAP21-79-L)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 59 Albion Street HAP21-079-L_Redacted

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the use of the NUVO Iron railing system on the front porch of the heritage designated property at 59 Albion Street within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following terms and conditions:

a)    any future repair, alterations, or replacement to the railing system require the implementation of the squared wooden spindles approved through HAP21-018-D.   (2021-R01)

Motion Passed

2.11   October, 2021 Building Division Monthly Report

2021-12-13 PEC SR October Monthly Building Division Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

2.6   Transit-Oriented Secondary Plan Prioritization

2021-12-13 PEC SR Transit Oriented Secondary Plan Prioritization

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Transit-Oriented Secondary Plan Priority Areas, appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A”, BE ENDORSED.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   876 Wellington Road (Z-9380)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 876 Wellington Road Z-9380

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1985798 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 876 Wellington Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, (The London Plan, 2016) and the Official Plan for the City of London (1989)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS(1)) Zone TO a Highway Service Commercial Special Provision (HS(_)) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the change in parking is minor in nature, the existing conditions plan circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Revised Application and Notice of Public Meeting accurately reflect the existing condition of the site, and no development or site alteration is proposed;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Auto-Oriented Commercial Corridor designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   4270 Lismer Lane (Z-9494)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 4270 Lismer Lane Z-9404

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Goldfield Limited, relating to the property located at 4270 Lismer Lane, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Holding Residential R8 (hh-100h-104h-198R8-4) Zone, TO an Holding Residential R5 Special Provision and R8 (hh-100h-104h-198R5-7(_)/R8-4 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 zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhood Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

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

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   1955 Jim Hebb Way (Z-9382)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1955 Jim Hebb Way Z-9382

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.3 FINAL

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., relating to the lands located at 1955 Jim Hebb Way, the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 R5/R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R5-6/R6-5) Zone, and a Holding Residential R6/R9 (h-54-R6-5/R9-3-H20) Zone TO a Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R6 (hh-54h-71h-100R5-6(__))/R6-5 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 zoning amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, as it promotes efficient development and land use patterns; accommodates an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing types, and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents; and minimizes land consumption and servicing costs;

  •    the recommended zoning amendment 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 recommended zoning amendment permits a use, form and intensity of residential development that conforms to the in-force policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designations;

  •    the recommended zoning amendment will allow for a reduced front yard depth of main building on Henrica Avenue, a reduced exterior side yard setback of to the main building on Dyer Drive & Jim Hebb Way and reduced yard encroachments to patio projection from the street line;

  •    the subject development block is of a size and shape suitable to accommodate the proposal. The recommended zoning amendment provides appropriate regulations to control the use and intensity of the building and ensure a well-designed development with appropriate mitigation measures; and,

  •    the proposed uses, form, and intensity are considered appropriate and compatible with existing residential development in the surrounding neighbourhood.  (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   506 Oxford Street East (OZ-9397)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 506 Oxford Street East OZ-9397

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sidhu McDowall Medicine Professional Corporation, relating to the property located at 506 Oxford Street East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a new policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” to a pharmacy on the subject lands; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3/Office Conversion (R3-1/OC5) Zone TO a Residential R3/Office Conversion Special Provision (R3-1/OC5(*)) 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 amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020, for mixed use development within transit supportive areas;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including the Key Directions and the Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the 1989 Official Plan, including permitting convenience commercial in mixed use areas and the criteria for specific area policies.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.5   1408 Ernest Avenue (Z-9385)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1408 Ernest Avenue Z-9385

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.5

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, based on the application by Paner House Inc., relating to the property located at 1408 Ernest Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 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 Restricted Office (RO2) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(  )) 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 the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the *Neighbourhood Place Type policies;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site; and,

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

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)

3.6   978 Gainsborough Road (Z-9247)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 978 Gainsborough Z-9247

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.6

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That the application by Highland Communities Limited, relating to the property located at 978 Gainsborough Road BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further consideration;

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

-    a communication dated December 8, 2021 from H. Froussios, Senior Associate, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

-   a communication dated December 6, 2021 from M. Niglas;

it being further 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:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   414-418 Old Wonderland Road (SPA20-103)

2021-12-13 PEC SR 414-418 Old Wonderland Road SPA20-103

2021-12-13 Public Comments 3.7

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

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 facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development; and,

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

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

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the Multi-family, Medium Density Residential designation of the 1989 Official Plan;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law.   (2021-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.8   Environmental Management Guidelines

2021-12-13 PEC SR Environmental Management Guidelines - Full

92021-12-13 Public Comments 3.8

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Environmental Management Guidelines Update:

a)    the Environmental Management Guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix 1 to Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED as a Municipal Guideline Document; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 21, 2021 to adopt the Environmental Management Guidelines, appended to the staff report dated December 13, 2021, in accordance with London Plan policy 1713;

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

  •    a communication dated December 2, 2021, from S. Franke, Executive Director, London Environmental Network;

  •    a communication dated December 2, 2021, from J. Hanbuch, The Urban League of London;

  •    a communication dated December 6, 2021, from B. Samuels, Member, Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee; Coordinator, London Bird Team and PhD Candidate, Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario;

  •    a communication dated December 4, 2021, from D. Wake, Nature London; and,

-   a communication dated December 9, 2021, from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

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-D03)

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. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to add a new part c) which reads as follows:

c)  the bi-annual review as outlined in the Environmental Management Guidelines BE ADDED to the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List;

Motion Failed (3 to 3)

3.9   50 King Street - Demolition Request

2021-12-13 PEC SR 50 King St Demolition Request - Full

92021-12-13 Public Comments 3.9

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the heritage designated property at 50 King Street, located in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)  prior to any demolition, photographic documentations and measured drawings of the existing building at 50 King Street be completed by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development.

b)   prior to any demolition, a demolition plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development demonstrating how the heritage attributes of adjacent cultural heritage resources are conserved, mitigating any potential direct or indirect adverse impacts, and implementing the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted as part of the demolition request, it being noted that should an area(s) identified as requiring further archaeological assessment be included within the work area for the demolition of the existing building at 50 King Street, further archaeological assessment shall be required;

c) prior to any demolition, a landscape plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development identifying work required to create a grass lawn on the property as an interim condition until any future redevelopment. No additional commercial and/or accessory parking will be permitted on the property as an interim use prior to the redevelopment of the property. The landscape plan should identify the cost of the work for the purpose of calculating a landscape security;

d)  a security for landscape be taken to ensure condition c) is implemented within an appropriate timeframe;

e) prior to demolition, the plaques commemorating the opening of the Middlesex Municipal Building in 1959 and 50 King Street in 1986 be salvaged by the property owner; and,

f) efforts to commemorate the Middlesex Municipal Building and the Court House Block be addressed through any future Heritage Impact Assessment required for the site and integrated into any landscape plans for the broader site;

it being noted that a separate Heritage Impact Assessment will be required as part of a future planning application for the property and Heritage Alteration Permit approval will be required before the issuance of a Building Permit;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated December 8, 2021, from K. McKeating, President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, London Region, with respect to this matter;

it being further 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-R01/P10D)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   1st Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

2021-12-13 PEC ACE Report

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on December 1, 2021:

a)  the following comments, from the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), BE FORWARDED to the Municipal Council through the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration, with respect to the Wharncliffe Road South Expansion and 100 Stanley Street Relocation:

-    the ACE recommends that the Wharncliffe Road South Improvements project explore every possible avenue to avoid road widening to provide more traffic lanes for motor vehicles; it being noted that there are a number of alternative methods that provide better traffic flow and improved options outside of driving one’s own personal vehicle (public transit, cycling, walking, etc.) and making this stretch the first of many projects to turn a stroad into proper transportation infrastructure;

-    the ACE recommends that the Civic Administration be directed by Municipal Council to revisit the issue of moving the property located at 100 Stanley Street and to find a way to move the house across the street; and,

-    the ACE encourages that, as we are in a climate crisis and have declared a climate emergency ourselves, means we must do everything possible to mitigate negative environmental impacts, for example demolishing homes and making room for more motor vehicles, is the exact antitheses to this declaration; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, 3.1, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2021-12-13 PEC TFAC Report

That the 9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 24, 2021 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.3   Request for Council Resolution, under Section 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 - 1919-1929 Oxford Street West

2021-12-13 PEC SR 1919-1929 Oxford Street West incl Kirkness Letter

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1919-1929 Oxford Street West:

 

a)    on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the report dated December 13, 2021 and entitled “Request for Council Resolution, under section 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, 1990, c. P.13 - 1919-1929 Oxford Street West” BE RECEIVED for information; and,

 

b)    the request to accept a Minor Variance application relating to the property located at 1919-1929 Oxford Street West BE APPROVED. (2021-D13)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2021-11-30 PEC SR DEFERRED MATTERS

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DIRECTED to provide current information related to the items on the Deferred Matters List to the Committee Clerk in order to update the List.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) 1st Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2021-12-08 LACH Report

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on December 8, 2021:

a)  on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the heritage designated property located at 50 King Street, located in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

  •    prior to any demolition, photographic documentations and measured drawings of the existing building at 50 King Street be completed by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development;

  •    prior to any demolition, a demolition plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development demonstrating how the heritage attributes of adjacent cultural heritage resources are conserved, mitigating any potential direct or indirect adverse impacts, and implementing the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted as part of the demolition request, it being noted that should an area(s) identified as requiring further archaeological assessment be included within the work area for the demolition of the existing building at 50 King Street, further archaeological assessment shall be required;

  •    prior to any demolition, a landscape plan shall be prepared by the property owner and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development identifying work required to create a grass lawn on the property as an interim condition until any future redevelopment; no additional commercial and/or accessory parking will be permitted on the property as an interim use prior to the redevelopment of the property; the landscape plan should identify the cost of the work for the purpose of calculating a landscape security;

  •    a security for landscape be taken to ensure the condition above is implemented within an appropriate timeframe;

  •    prior to demolition, the plaques commemorating the opening of the Middlesex Municipal Building in 1959 and 50 King Street in 1986 be salvaged by the property owner; and,

  •    efforts to commemorate the Middlesex Municipal Building and the Court House Block be addressed through any future Heritage Impact Assessment required for the site and integrated into any landscape plans for the broader site;

it being noted that a separate Heritage Impact Assessment will be required as part of a future planning application for the property and Heritage Alteration Permit approval will be required before the issuance of a Building Permit;

it being further noted that the site is an important cultural heritage landscape and should continue to be part of an institutional and public realm landscape in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District;

b)  on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the use of the NUVO Iron railing system on the front porch of the heritage designated property located at 59 Albion Street, within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED with the following term and condition:

  •    any future repair, alterations, or replacement to the railing system require the implementation of the squared wooden spindles approved through HAP21-018-D;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Siemens, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

c)  clauses 1.1, 2.1 to 2.4 inclusive, 3.1, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   Solicitor-Client Privilege / Litigation or Potential Litigation

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Planning and Environment Committee convene, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following item:

This report can be considered in a meeting closed to the public as the

subject matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to

solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that

purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation;

the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect

to an appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the

purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and

employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes, in Closed Session, from 7:43 PM to 8:35 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 8:37 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 54 minutes)

[0:18] Heather, can we do a quick sound check from chambers, please? Sure, testing. Thank you, and one and two, please. We can hear you now, thanks.

[0:53] I get you to stay at the podium for just a moment, and we’ll do one more quick if we can with IT, please. If they, have they remoted in? I see the thumbs up from you guys have, he’s remoted in. Okay, I’m, can you mute? And then I will ask mute the room, and then I’ll ask to unmute. So we’ll just do a quick test. I’m sending a request to one and two to unmute. We, thank you.

[1:31] Just to confirm in one and two, that was an unmuting performed by IT. Yes. Okay, great, thank you. Just doing another sound check for our live stream on e-scribe.

[4:17] I can hear you in chambers. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the first meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

[14:32] The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council standing and advisory committee meetings and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PEC@london.ca. Moving on to call to order.

[15:10] I’d like to ask committee members, any disclosures of January, interest? The none. I’d like to move on to the election of the vice chair for the term ending November 14, 2022, 2022. Committee, I’d like to see how you’d like to proceed. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to put Sean Lewis forward for that position. I think I’d like to go around to all committee members, Councillor Lewis.

[15:52] Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to say that I appreciate Councillor Lehman’s support, however, and I did indicate at SPPC when we were selecting chairs that I was gonna support you and withdraw my name from that since then I’ve taken on the chair of the Corporate Services Committee. And so in fairness to give others an opportunity, I’d prefer someone other than myself take the vice chair role on for this committee. Okay, so just, I’ll go to other committee members. Councillor Turner.

[16:30] No good deed should go on punish. So I’ll nominate Councillor Lehman. Any other nominations from the committee? Dean Nunn, I guess I’ll look for a seconder and I see a seconder in Councillor Lewis. With that, I will go to Councillor Lehman. Councillor Lehman.

[17:03] I will just say thank you to Councillor Turner for your faith in me and I’ll let my name stand. With that, I think we can go to vote on our vice chair. Please scribe, I would like to vote yes, please. Closing the vote, the motion here is six to zero.

[17:37] Congratulations, Councillor Lehman for being vice chair. I look forward to ending with the chair to you. And I would also like to, I guess, acknowledge Councillor Stephen Turner. Welcome to planning, it’s good to see you back again. And with that, I would like to move on just before I do. I would like to, if I may, committee, just to acknowledge the 2022 urban design awards have been presented and I just want to acknowledge Britto Hagen and her team and for the great work that they had done.

[18:27] As well as the jury, I had the honor of being part of this jury and I found it such an exciting time being at planning and seeing, we see the paperwork with these applications, but it is really quite fascinating when you go to these buildings and see them in our communities. And it was an honor to be part of the jury and also the expertise that the jury has. It was a learning experience for me, listening to all the professional comments as we toured the different buildings.

[19:01] So if you have not seen the virtual award ceremony, I would definitely encourage you to do so. And thanks again to staff for the work that they did. Mayor Holder, I’ll go to you next. Thanks, only to add my congratulations to all the award recipients and all the nominees. I was going to say too, Chair, the challenge of being a jurist, a judge, is that everybody loves you coming in, but a lot less do going out. But congratulations for doing it to you and all the other folks who made the commitment to be jurists.

[19:39] Thank you, Mayor Holder. And with that, I’d like to move on to the consent items. Are there any items that the committee members wish to either pull? I see none, so I will look for a motion, Mayor Holder. I wonder if I could pull 2.6, please. Okay, and with that, there are any other committee members that would like to pull any.

[20:15] I see none, so I am looking for a motion to approve the rest of the consent items at Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Layman before we go to vote. I think, are there any comments from committee members that they would like to make on the items? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just trying to pull the right item right here, and I can’t grab it, but one of them is the identification that the city has no interest in a parcel that had been set aside for schools.

[20:55] It is in the north end of the city, north of Fanshawe Park Road. It is a little bit further east than the discussion that we had at Council previously, where a school site was required, but I am kind of curious why this site may not have been at least partially suitable for the school board, given their scarcity of lands and opportunities to provide a school site in the north. Yes, with that, I’ll go to staff to have got any comments to Councillor Turner’s questions.

[21:31] I think this is the one on 613 Superior Drive, just 2.9. Through you, Madam Chair, the plan of subdivision came through and it was circulated to all four school boards, all of which decline them, and it came as well to the city for their opportunity to acquire the lands and give us subsequently as the reports laid out in front of you, there was a desire for these lands. We have, Mr. Felwood might be able to speak a little bit more, but we have set up a task force for the school boards to assist them with identifying upcoming school sites or identify their needs for school lands, so we’ll be proceeding with that in the future.

[22:21] Councillor Turner. Thank you, Mr. Page, and to three, Madam Chair, and I suppose that was a bit of an unfair question for staff because it was placing a question of the school board on the civic staff, but I think what this, it was more commentary, perhaps, is that there is a process, it was nice to hear, actually, from Mr. Page, that a task force is being set up to address these issues. The fact that this parcel came up and was not optioned in such short proximity to the issue that we had just only a couple months or a few months ago really surprised me, I guess, and especially since it was lines in the north for school opportunities, so I hope the task force is able to help address these concerns in the future and I don’t have any objection to what’s been proposed in the consent, thanks.

[23:22] Thank you, I see. Are there any other comments on other items? Councillor Layman. I just want to echo Councillor Turner’s frustration ‘cause I think in that last debate, we did express, you know, we have two organizations that, unfortunately, just the way that things work are not in sync on planning and can lead to, yeah, contentious issues down the road and I just hope that this particular parcel doesn’t pop up in the next couple of years and would have should have could have, but again, you know, that’s with the board and their challenges they have, so I’m glad to see the city reaching out and having some sort of dialogue through the task force to do what we can given, you know, the restrictions placed on us and the school board by the province.

[24:22] So, yeah, I just wanted to echo Councillor Turner’s frustration there. Thank you for that, Councillor Layman and I see no other comments from committee, so if we can proceed with voting on the consent items with the exception of 2.6. Terrible, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[25:01] So I’d like to move on to 2.6, which is the transit oriented secondary plan prioritization was pulled by Mayor Holder. Thanks for watching the question, the staff, if I can, I look at the secretary of plan prioritization and when I reviewed it, I recall the last time we had a discussion and if you recall, my ended Oxford intersection was very much forefront and then it was decided that Wellington Road by virtue of the gateway and development in that area and the fact that it’s a transit corridor should have priority, we all agreed with that.

[25:46] But I see it reasonably prominent on the list as item four there and so my question to staff is why it’s on the, I don’t know the timing of when this would come up, but we don’t have huge redevelopment there that I see nor rapid transit on the four corners, but I still see it there and so I’m just trying to get a sense through you chair to staff why it’s prioritized, I think that’s highly, but I could stand to be corrected on that. And just for further clarification, Mr. Mayor, this is number four, then the trans village place type, adults food and wonderland.

[26:28] That’s a correct page 72 for college. So if I can go to staff, questions around the timelines and why it’s here? Yes, this is Britt Ohhagen, can you hear me okay? Yes, I can. Perfect. So we have, so the direction was to report back and prioritize the Wellington corridor first and foremost and then following that also prioritize the transit village place types. So as you know, Masonville has recently been completed.

[27:06] So in order of priority, we did focus on White Oaks and then the Highbury, Oxford area, the pieces that were missing in that transit village to complement the London psychiatric hospital lands that already have a secondary plan. And then the fourth priority being the Oxford and Wonderland transit village. So we wanted to highlight that those transit villages would be the kind of second to the fourth priority coming up. As the report mentions, these plans will move forward kind of based on, we do have dedicated staff resources to develop these plans and some of them may go concurrently.

[27:53] So we may be dealing with multiple secondary plans at any given time. I would say that for the four areas identified as priorities, we would look probably around a five or six year time frame for all of those to be completed, I would assume. And that’s all really based on other emerging priorities and emerging issues that come up as well. Now holding. Great Chair, you probably can’t hear me.

[28:27] I’m trying to get. I can hear you. Well, you can hear me, thank you. Yep, and I can see you too. Well, that’s too bad for you, but I’m glad you can hear me at least. Chair, the staff is, thank you to staff. The answer to my question with respect to timing as well with regard to these and I needed to have a sense of that as well, the fact that some may be considered concurrently will deal with that as it is. But thank you for the answers, that’s helpful to me. I’d like to go to Councillor Lewis.

[29:04] Thank you, Madam Chair. I was gonna ask this in consent, but since it was pulled, I wanna ask it now because it’s still relevant to me in terms of the East part of London and the East London link development. First of all, I will say to staff, thank you for making the Wellington Gateway areas, both of them priorities. I think that that was absolutely essential and was one of the reasons that we provided this direction in Council previously, but I’m concerned in the report that the East London link is mentioned only in terms of the London Psychiatric Hospital lands.

[29:44] It references the area from Roehampton to Second Street and recognizes that that is on a rapid transit corridor and particularly coming out of a recent decision at planning and then a Council to refuse an application in that area because of the density and the issues that were raised about sanitary sewer capacity and all of those things. I’d like to hear from our staff why that area isn’t on the list already because what we heard on a recent application is that there definitely needs to be a consideration of a secondary plan in that area, not just mention that it needs some consideration in the future.

[30:28] Yes, through the chair, this is Britto Hagen again. So the direction back was to prioritize kind of the Wellington corridor and then the transit villages. The report, as you mentioned, does mention that there are some kind of segments along the East London link that should be evaluated further. We didn’t think that these areas were particularly large enough to definitely warrant a secondary plan, but there are areas that we could examine through some of those other studies or in separate studies outside of this to kind of evaluate the missing pieces along Dundas Street in the East London link, as well as the Oxford piece going out to Fanshawe.

[31:14] So we anticipate that those could be considered within kind of the hybrid Oxford transit village consideration because we aren’t necessarily bounded by these place type boundaries for the secondary plans. We would look to kind of look at the surrounding area as well. So those could definitely be included and evaluated during those processes. So that’s great to hear. And I won’t belabor the point too much. I’ll continue a conversation offline with staff about this ‘cause I think it’s really important.

[31:50] But I did wanna ask ‘cause I didn’t get the sense from the Wellington Gateway proposed areas. And so perhaps through you, Chair Miss O’Hagen can expand on her answer just a little bit. Are these areas that we’re looking at right now influenced or particularly limited by what we heard on that planning application that I referenced earlier about the 100 meter radius from the transit village locations? So was that a limiting factor in these secondary plan areas? Hearing that you certainly are open to consideration of areas adjacent to those.

[32:29] But was that one of the factors that weighed in on this? So through the chair, the locations or the corridors in general locations of the villages were selected based on the place types. In the London plan, it does identify which areas of the city might warrant secondary plans. And it specifically mentions the rapid transit villages and the rapid transit corridors as well as urban corridors. Through the terms of reference and the kind of initial study of these areas when initiating a secondary plan, we would be looking at the surrounding area as well to kind of evaluate if there’s any adjacent neighborhoods or other place types that would need additional policy related to them to kind of deal with some of those issues of transition or consolidation of lots and other planning applications such as that.

[33:30] So we would be looking at surrounding areas when we do the studies. I’m not sure if that fully answers your question. It does actually through the chair. Thank you, Ms. O’Hagan. And as I indicated, I’ll continue a more in depth conversation with yourself and other members of staff when it’s appropriate offline. I recognize that this is a ways down the road in terms of when the study would actually commence. And so there’s time to have those discussions. It’s not something that we need to hammer out at tonight’s meeting. And I’m generally quite supportive of the prioritization list as it’s been brought forward.

[34:05] So thank you for providing those clarifications and I’ll be making myself a note to follow up and set a time to chat with you further about this in greater detail. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments from committee members? I see none. So with that, I am looking for a motion to approve the transit oriented secondary plan prioritization. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. With that, we can vote.

[34:47] Councillor, yes on this. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries six to zero. And just before we proceed to the public participation meetings, I would like to draw committee members’ attention to the latch report. We did have a consent item, which was on, it was 2.10, but we also have a public participation meeting 3.9 on 50 King Street.

[35:22] Both of these appear in the latch report. I just want to bring committee members’ attention to the latch report as we proceed through the agenda. So moving on, the next one is a public participation meeting. I’m looking for a mover to open it up on 3.1, which is 876 Wanton Road. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Mayor Holder, please.

[36:16] If the chair is called to vote, yes. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries six to zero. With that, I’d like to go to committee members on this zoning change. Oh, sorry. There is no presentation. I would like to go to the public, the applicant, if the applicant is here. They are, good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Casey Cole-Jiggy, senior planner with Zalen Capriam Limited.

[36:50] Good afternoon to yourself, committee members, members of the public and staff. I just want just for some out the staff presentation, just maybe, you know, being proactive and maybe addressing some of committee’s questions. This application is to permit a service trade use on the subject lands. And more specifically, it’s to permit a plumbing, plumbing and heating establishment, a local firm, Mike Pope, plumbing and heating. You may have seen their white trucks while you’ve been sitting in traffic throughout the city.

[37:26] They’re a local firm, multi-generational, and they’re seeking a zoning change so that they can relocate their growing establishment to the subject lands. We’ve reviewed the staff report. We’re in agreement with the recommendation that’s before planning committee. I’m on hand to address any questions or comments from planning committee, as well as Adam and Carly Pope. The owners of Mike Pope, plumbing are also on hand to address any operational questions. We thank you for your time this afternoon and look forward to your decision.

[38:01] Thank you. Multi-generational. And they’re seeking a… Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak to this application? Seeing none, I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak. And with that, I would like to go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Moved by councilor Turner, seconded by councilor Hillier.

[38:46] The chair’s calling the question about yes. And has councilor Willis? Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[39:20] I’d like to go to committee members for a motion, for comments, councilor Turner. Where’s the staff recommendation? I have a seconder in councilor Lewis. Councilor Hillier, do you have a comment before we move on or councilor Hillier? Go ahead. Just a welcome to say thank you for Mike Pope Fumman to be coming to my award.

[39:54] He did the work on my paper years ago and I know he does very fine work. That I would like to, if committee members can vote, near holder. And I’ll vote yes, chair, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. 3.2, this is a public participation meeting at 4270 Lismir Lane.

[40:30] I would like to go to committee members to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman, seconded by, Councillor Turner. Yes, I’ll vote yes, thanks. Councillor Hillier, closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[41:14] Committee members, this is a zoning change to facilitate townhouses. There is not a presentation from staff, but I would like to go to the applicant, the applicant is here. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC planning. At this time, we’d like to express our support for the findings and the recommendations of the planning staff report that was prepared by Ms. Curtis. As discussed in that report, the intent of the application is to add a site specific R5-7 zone to 4270 Lismir Lane permitted 66 unit cluster townhouse development within this block of the Emily Carr subdivision.

[41:58] Just briefly speak to the merits of the application. With respect to the report, we agree with the conclusion set out in that report that the proposed zoning rezoning is consistent with applicable planning policies, compatible surrounding development context, and we’ll encourage greater housing to waste in the community. These findings reflect our planning justification report that was submitted in support with the application as well. So to conclude, we’d like to thank city staff for their attention to this application. And with approval of this proposal, we are our client is looking to move forward with the site plan approval application shortly and hoping to initiate site development this spring.

[42:35] Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you, Mr. Allen, to go to the public. Now, if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to this application, I hear and see none and I’ll ask one more time, if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to this application here and see none.

[43:07] So with that, I would like to go to committee members and looking to close the public participation meeting. Mayor Holder, seconded by Councillor Hillier, who can proceed to vote. Yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. But I’d like to go to committee members if there’s any comments or a motion.

[43:42] Mayor Holder. Yes, I’d like to move the staff report, Chair. The seconded by Councillor Lewis. And I see no further comments. Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. I’m supportive of this. Interesting, as you read through it, it’s considered intensification and it’s on the edge of the built area and interurban reserve right adjacent. But good to see mixed forms of development within the subdivision, especially something like this.

[44:20] It’s not over intensification. It’s well adjacent to single families and in that neighborhood. So I think this is appropriate and easy to support. Thank you for that. And I see no other comments from committee members. So we can proceed to vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. That we’re going to move on to 3.3, which is a public participation meeting for 1955, Jim Headway, looking for a motion to open up the public participation meeting, Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

[45:09] And with that, I’d like to, if we can vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. For brief, this presentation on this zoning application. The question is only by-law to commit a mix of two and a half and three and a half story stuck back to back Councillor Strong’s. This one makes sure that, yeah, sorry about that.

[45:45] I sort of faded at the beginning and then I could hear you, but I just want to make sure that all committee members can hear you and if you don’t mind just starting all over again. Thank you. I’ll see it as only. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, sometimes I have issues with this computer. So the applicant has requested as only by-law amendment to commit a mix of two and a half and three and a half story stuck back to back down on Strong’s and five building blocks fronting Jim Headway and Dyer Drive. Development will have pedestrian access from Jim Headway, Dyer Drive and Henrika Avenue, conducting to the existing pedestrian street or sidewalks and two vehicle access points from Dyer Drive and to Jim Headway.

[46:32] This lands are currently vacant and are directly adjacent to the density residential to the north and east, high density residential to the south and the middle section on an emergency medical service station to the west. The taller three and a half story building blocks are proposed along the Dyer Drive frontage, while the two and a half story buildings are proposed along Jim Headway to provide for an appropriate transition between the higher density, higher rise forms of housing development to the south and the lower density low rise forms of housing development existing plan to be to the north and east.

[47:06] In total, 89 residential users are proposed for the site, which deals with density as 75 units per hectare. A total of 134 parking spaces are provided including nine spaces for visitor parking and six spaces for accessible parking. Parking will be provided in the interior on the site to maintain pedestrian oriented street corridors. The applicant has requested the special reasons to the existing R56 zone, which does permit to propose stacked back to back townhouses. The special provisions are for the reduction of front and exterior side yards, which are commonly used to buildings configurations to locate parking internal to the site, away from street frontages and to site the townhouse blocks with minimal setbacks from public right away and to create a street edge, as well as established a sense of enclosure and uncomfortable pedestrian environment for proposed front yard setback and somewhere to the front yard setbacks provided by the low density development to the east as to create a continuous street edge between the two uses.

[48:08] The proposed back-to-back townhouse development would help to expand housing choices within the Fox Hollow community planning area and serve as a transition between the high density apartment buildings to the south. The low density single will be tied to homes to the north and east. The back-to-back townhouses are also promotes and encourages residential classification, which is encouraged in the 19-D nine official plan and 11 plan lands are well suited for the tenant cluster house use, considering the proposed size is location within a developing residential community and is proximately to establish retail commercial uses in employment areas, recreational areas and public transit routes.

[48:47] The increase in density is in keeping with the density and scale of the development of policies of the official plan which allows for maximum approximate density of 75 units per hectare for lands designated multifamily median density residential. The increased density will also allow for the development to maximize home and potential on the site to contribute to achievement of classification targets and to provide for an appropriate transition between the existing and plan neighboring high density and low density residential buildings that compose the surrounding area.

[49:19] The existing holding provisions that were added to the zone so the subdivision application will be retained for the subject lands. In staff’s opinion, the requested zoning is appropriate for the subject lands in the Fox Hollow community planning area and should not generate insignificant land use conflicts and on the adjacent property. If there are any questions from the committee regarding the staff, I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McSillah. If there’s any, are there any technical questions of staff from the committee members? I’ve seen none.

[49:54] So I’d like to move on to the applicant. If the applicant is here. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Jay McGuffin, Principal Planner, Montyth Brown Planning Consultants. I’m here representing Foxwood Development’s London Inc. The applicant in this matter and I’m also joined by the Vice President of Foxwood, Ms. Corey Marsh. She is on the line as well. I’d like to thank Sean and staff for the recommendations in the report. We’ve had a chance to review the report and confer with Mr. McSillah.

[50:27] The amended report and bylaw that is attached were in support and in favor of. It is consistent with the application and the planning justification report that we’ve provided. Just wanted to also mention that we subsequent to receiving comments from the community held a privately initiated community engagement meeting on the 1st of November. We had five residents from the community attend where we were able to answer questions that they had on the development proposal and provide detailed information in terms of the specificity of the land use that was being asked for.

[51:05] What the purpose of the amendment was in terms of the relief being requested on the yards and what the overall design intent was. Following that, those are our submissions. Madam Chair, we are available to respond any questions of committee or the public. Thank you, Mr. McGuffin for being here. And with that, I’d like to go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application. I hear and see no one, so I will ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments on this application.

[51:47] That I do, I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. And with that, with that. That chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, I’d like to go to committee members looking for a motion or end comments on this application, Councillor Turner, and have a seconder, Councillor Lewis and comments, Councillor Turner.

[52:34] I’m Chair, just to repeat my comments on the previous file, this is a good use of space. I think it makes sense the way that the density transitions from Hyde Park and decreases in density as it gets deeper into the neighborhood. I was looking at Appendix B on public engagement and it says the nature of liaison and then it says response system. It says the summary of the comments received include the following. I recognize this is kind of the general format that we see these in. I was wondering as I read this, if there’s a way that these can be formatted in the future to, they almost sound like truths the way that they’re stated, right?

[53:16] So, sorry, the comments received include the following. Townhouses contribute more negatively to the neighborhood than bringing any positive changes. Rather than stating it’s something like a belief that townhouses contribute more negatively to the neighborhood than bringing any positive change. I don’t believe that to be true and it’s an unfortunate comment. And when it sits in a city report, I know that the pains were taken to categorize them as these were community responses rather than the position of the city.

[53:50] I could see it getting conflated in some way. Anyway, it was just a general commentary ‘cause I’ve seen a lot of these reports where they’re framed and sometimes the public comments are not necessarily consistent with the realities of what they bring. So, I think to kind of push back a little bit on what some of the community had said here, I don’t believe townhouses do contribute negatively to a neighborhood or don’t bring positive change. I think they can and I think this is a good example of a way that there’s a good transition of density within the subdivision.

[54:26] Thank you, Councillor Turner for those comments. Are there any other comments? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take an opportunity to echo Councillor Turner’s concern on that. I think it’s a very fair point. And I think that it does unfortunately and lend a little bit of extra weight to those being factual when in fact, their opinions or beliefs. And certainly I’ve seen these in many reports too where I don’t hold them to be true, although members of the public might. So, I hope that that suggestion is taken in the spirit that Councillor Turner, I know intended and I certainly support it, which is that we may want to just soften the language around these a little bit so that they seem less a statement of fact.

[55:14] Thank you, Councillor Lewis. And if the committee will allow me, I would just like to make a comment from the chair here. Really appreciate the remarks from my committee members on I guess community engagement in particular and how we address it. I do want to thank the applicant though for holding the open house and for allowing an opportunity for the community to get more information on these applications as they come to planning. I just think that’s also important and irrelevant with these, I guess, intensification projects that the community is not so much, this concern, but the more information that is shared, the more the community is aware of our policies and being able to, I guess, articulate concerns in a different manner.

[56:15] I’m very supportive of that as well. So with that, we’ve got a motion on the floor and if we can go and vote on the air holder. Yes, thank you, I’ll vote yes, Chair, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Moving on to 3.4, which is another public participation meeting on 506 Oxford Street East. And this is another zoning change.

[56:52] I’m looking for a committee to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Turner, if we can vote. Thank you, Chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. This is a, we’re adding a new policy here. No changes to the building. So presentation, I would like to go to the applicant. The applicant is here.

[57:27] I’d like to make some comments. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. It’s Matt Campbell from Zalenka, pre-ammo here. I don’t have anything to add to the staff report that has already been prepared. We’re certainly in support of the staff recommendation for approval for the committee’s consideration. What we’re looking at here is zoning by-law amendment to permit a pharmacy and existing building that has been converted from a previous residential use to partly a commercial use. There’s still a unit on the upper floor.

[58:01] This is in an area of Oxford Street that has quite seen quite a bit of office conversions, medical dental office conversions, the uses of that nature. And is generally in keeping with those uses. Madam Chair, as you mentioned, there is no physical change to the building that’s proposed at this time. And we understand this is not subject site plan approval. Again, the intent here is to permit a pharmacy on the main floor of the dwelling. And that pharmacy is more or less a spinoff use of some of the other medical dental offices that are in the immediate area.

[58:38] There’s any questions I happy to respond to them as necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. And I see Councillor Turner has a question. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick technical question for Mr. Campbell. In the public engagement, one of the property neighbors had some concerns about shared driveway and parking and some previous damage from the previous patrons of that. Have there been any discussions with the adjacent property owners to try and reconcile some of those concerns?

[59:17] Through the chair to Councillor Turner, thanks for the question. Great question. I can advise that my client has engaged services of a surveyor to actually determine where the lot line is and they’re currently working out exactly the issue of the shared driveway. So that is an issue that we’re actively on top of and trying to find an amicable way to deal with that issue. And thanks for the question. Thank you. I’d like to go now to the public.

[59:48] If there’s anyone that would like to make a comment on this application. Just a surge, but then Phil. Hi there. Yes, thank you for allowing me to pose a question. Can you hear me? Yes, Mr. Babenco, please proceed. You have up to five minutes. Okay, thank you. Just a quick question. Just I’m a neighbor, close by. So I receive the document, live on the street.

[1:00:25] But question is, is this a pharmacy that’s typically open to the public or is this more of the type of pharmacy, you know, private pharmacy dedicated to the, to the clients of the doctor’s office? We can follow up after the public participation meeting. Mr. Babenco and get your, an answer to your question. Is there anything else that you would like to ask for? Well, yeah, I just, for me and some other neighbors, or just wondering, is this, in fact, a change of use to provide it to be a clinic?

[1:01:07] More of a, you know, a medical clinic for, for those who are, you know, for some of like those other clinics in London that have popped up to deal with that need? Okay, an answer to your question. Is there anything else that you’d like to say? No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak to this application?

[1:01:42] I don’t see him on the Zoom. Jason Parker, are you available? Madam Chair, I can confirm that that person has not come in through Zoom. Okay, and with that, I’ll ask if there’s anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment here and see none. So I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting.

[1:02:14] Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. And with that, we can vote. No, I will go again. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Before I go to committee members, I will ask maybe if the applicant is here to respond to the question from the public member about the pharmacy, is it a pharmacy or a clinic? Thanks, Madam Chair, it’s Matt Camp.

[1:02:52] Madam Chair, it’s Matt Camp here again. I can’t definitively answer that question because that hasn’t been explicitly stated to me, but what I can say is that this pharmacy is intended to be a resource for the medical offices that are in the immediate area. So it’s likely that if there was a prescription that would be handed out at one of these medical offices, then an individual or patient would be able to go to this pharmacy to get that prescription built, wherever that may be.

[1:03:24] It was not explicitly stated that this was intended for to be open to the public, although I can’t confirm that at this time. Thank you, Mr. Campbell for the answer. Hopefully that satisfies the public. And I’m looking for a motion from committee members for this zoning change to allow for a pharmacy. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Turner. Any comments from committee members?

[1:04:02] Councillor Lehman. Thank you, through you, Chair, to staff. Would it make a difference in your recommendation based on the fact that this could be used either way as a private dispensary or a public dispensary? Madam Chair, it’s Michael Thomas insecure, if I may answer that. When I check the zoning by-law, I just want to be clear that the zoning right now permits medical dental offices.

[1:04:37] The zoning does not permit clinics, nor does our recommendation, that won’t permit clinics either. Sometimes members of the public want to be delicate and don’t want to ask the question. So I’ll just put it out there in case this is what the member of the public was asking. The question might have been, is this going to be a methadone clinic? And the answer, if that is the question, the answer to that is no. That also requires it to be a very specific use. It must be a methadone clinic.

[1:05:09] And there is no application and no recommendation to zone this as a methadone clinic. I hope that answers the questions. Councillor Lehman. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah, that helps me a lot. Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to go to Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, Chair. I’d like to thank Mr. Thomasism for that response because that certainly would be a question that weighs in the community’s minds. And if that hadn’t been directly asked, I would have put that forward.

[1:05:43] But thank you for clarifying. And with that, I’m looking for a motion for this zoning change. Moved by Mayor Holder, seconded by Councillor Hillier. And if we can proceed to vote. I’ll say yes, Chair, thank you. closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Quite smoothly here to 3.5, which is a public participation meeting for 1408 Ernest Avenue.

[1:06:24] I’m looking at committee members to open up the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Mayor Holder. And we can vote. Thank you, Chair. closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. With that, there is not a staff presentation on this application.

[1:06:57] It is a conversion from a commercial to residential. I would like to go to the applicant at the applicant is here. Good evening, Madam Chair, Jay McGuffin, again, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, here on behalf of our client, Wagdi Botros, who is also in attendance this evening with his architect. It’s a fairly simple application. It’s an existing commercial building in a, at this point in the 1989 official plan in a medium family, medium density, residential designation.

[1:07:36] The proposal is its conversion to residential zoning to allow for the development of 19, or 18 residential units on the interior, nine on each floor, and the provision of 64 parking spaces in the existing parking lot to the rear of the building. Through our planning submission, our client’s architect presented renderings of the redeveloped proposal, taking the two-story building and converting it, using glass facade for the improvements to the building, providing pedestrian connections to the surrounding street sidewalk and maintaining the existing built form.

[1:08:19] The London plan also designates the subject lands for residential development through the neighborhoods place type. And the requested zoning is looking for, basically the acknowledgement of the existing setbacks in place four meters. Sorry, I’m just skipping to exactly what we’re looking for, four meters for the front yard and four meters to the interior side yard to represent the existing building on the property. And to rezone the land, it would be into an R8 for special zone.

[1:09:00] That is, we are in support of the staff recommendation for approval of the application. We’ve had an opportunity to review the proposed draft zoning by-law and concur with the recommendations, as they are consistent with our application and planning justification report. And I will be available to answer any questions of committee or the public. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Any technical questions from committee members? Councilor Turner. Yes, Madam Chair, just a couple of quick ones.

[1:09:34] It looks like this is basically using the existing form. Is there a requirement for a site plan on this? Or does it go, we’re just doing the rezoning and that’s also required because it’s using the same footprint? If I can go to staff on that, if we need a site plan for this? Three, Madam Chair, no site plan. The role of approval is required for this. Councilor Turner. Okay, thanks. So that leads to the second question. It was just, there were two comments from urban design, was with respect to a private amenity space.

[1:10:10] It looks like that might be difficult to accomplish. I’m not sure if Mr. McGovern has an opportunity to comment on that. The second one was a pedestrian connection from the rear to the sidewalk to allow for those kind of activities instead of just to the parking lot. Are those things that can be accommodated or contemplated? Mr. McGovern. Through you, Madam Chair, to member Turner. Absolutely, I would be speaking out of turn. However, I think I would have to ask our clients architect to speak in regard to the design-related matters, certainly from a physical perspective, the installation of a sidewalk is not an issue.

[1:10:51] There are sidewalks that have been proposed as part of the development submission that extend to the entryways of the various units that will be ground-oriented. Three, Madam Chair, thank you, Mr. McGovern. I think the other question probably answers itself, but just looking at the proposed form, there’s probably no opportunities for balconies or anything like that that’s recommended in the urban design comments. Is there any opportunity for any amenity space for the residents of this building?

[1:11:27] Through you, Madam Chair, there is quite a lot of amenity space. Pre-consultation meeting notes may have been on a different variation of this particular application. So the plan that was put forward does provide a significant amount of amenity space, both for and after the existing building and then a larger open green space at the back of the building as well. So there is a fair amount of green space provided on the site. Councillor Turner.

[1:11:59] Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I’ll go to Councillor Hillier. We are right now on technical questions of the applicant. Yes, thank you. Just to continue the line that Councillor Turner was running with. I’m looking at this and it’s showing 64 parking spaces. And I understand when it was a commercial building, it did require that many. Has any thought been giving in to increasing the green space amenity this location? ‘Cause I don’t think, like I’m looking at 18 units, that’s 64 spaces or 64 spaces. That’s a lot of spaces for 18 units.

[1:12:33] Mr. Mcguffin. Thank you, Madam Chair. To Councillor Hillier, there is a subsequent development proposal being considered going forward for the intensification of the rear portion of the property. That was my comment back to Mr. Turner and in the pre-consultation, some of the comments provided addressed a more densely developed site plan than the one that was actually landed on and coming forward. There will be an opportunity for intensification on the remainder of the property. At this point in time, there has been no consideration in terms of reducing the number of parking spaces.

[1:13:09] Should the proponent decide not to proceed with an intensification at the rear of the property in the future, then I would anticipate that there would be such a requirement or an ability, pardon me, in terms of reducing the amount of parking. Councillor. Yes, thank you, just a follow up. So in case of intensification in the rear of this property, how many parking spaces have been allocated for this unit? I believe your requirement is a 1.5 spaces per unit.

[1:13:44] So 16 units times 1.5, 20 and 24 you answer. Okay, thank you. - Thank you. I see no other questions from committee members, technical only. I’d like to go to the public. Is there anyone here for the public that would like to make comments on this application? I see none, I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak, please come forward. Good.

[1:14:18] I see none, I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. If we can proceed to vote. Thank you terrible, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Committee members to bring forward a motion and comments for both Councillor Turner, moved by Councillor Turner. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis, comments from committee members, Councillor Turner.

[1:15:02] Thanks Madam Chair. This is actually pretty exciting. It’s a really interesting adaptive reuse of a commercial building. And I think it looks pretty promising and pretty smart. So I’m happy to support this. I see no other comments from committee members. If I may, I’d like to make a comment here from the chair. I look at this as good news too, going from commercial to residential. You don’t see that too often in zoning applications here at committee. So really pleased to support this as well.

[1:15:35] And glad to see this, hope to see more. And with that, if we can proceed to vote. Thank you, terrible, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And moving forward to 3.6, which is the public participation meeting on 978 Gainesboro Road. I think we are on time to hear this public participation meeting.

[1:16:10] So I am looking to committee members to open it up, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hill here. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Committee members, I know there has been a request for a referral here, but I would like to proceed with the public participation meeting that we have on hand. We do have maybe a staff presentation if I can go to staff to proceed.

[1:16:52] Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll end around here, development services. As mentioned, there is a request for deferment deferral. So I’m just gonna provide a short presentation, just providing some context. The presentation is in the added agenda before you. The application 978 Gainesboro Road. It’s on the south east corner, no, sorry, south east of High Park and Gainesboro set back in from the corner within the High Park Camelot area.

[1:17:26] It’s an undeveloped and site and is surrounded by apartment building to the south undeveloped lands and residential uses to the east, commercial uses to the north and a single detached and commercial uses to the west. A quick policy overview. The subject site is located in the neighborhood place site, which permits a variety of residential uses, including townhouses, stack townhouses, apartments, maximum height in the London plan is four stories or six stories with bonusing. The site is in the multifamily high density residential in 1989 official plan, which contemplates residential intensification up to max density of 150 units per hectare.

[1:18:10] The subject site is also in the High Park community plan, which did cluster the multifamily high density residential designations around the business for both business district at that time to encourage higher densities within walking distance. So these lands are within that residential cluster. And I just wanna make note that the current zoning is a residential R9 with some bowling provisions on it for public site plan and some servicing. It currently allows for 15 story apartment buildings with a density of 150.

[1:18:47] The applicant is proposing two 20 story apartment buildings interconnected by four story podium with a total of 373 residential units at a density of 287 units per hectare and 477 pregnant spots. Special provisions are also being sought for a minimum front yard setback of 6.2 meters, west interior site yard setback of 12 meters, rear yard setback of 21 and a maximum lot curvage of 31 along with just providing 25% for landscaped open space.

[1:19:23] And they’re also seeking a maximum building height of 70 meters, which would be the 20 stories. They’ve also requested to add a bonus zone to permit the density and they’re proposing to offer the following facility services and matters in return for this heightened density, which include affordable housing, exceptional site and building design, underground parking, employment related daycare and a direct cash contribution for improvements to the Hyde Park Village Green. Thank you.

[1:19:56] Thank you, Ms. Riley. Any technical questions from committee members? Councillor Turner. A quick one, I think Mr. Riley might’ve mentioned it at the beginning, but Mr. Fusios submitted a letter asking for a deferral and indicated that staff was supportive of that is, could I just get confirmation of that? Pretty much. Staff is supportive of the deferral. Thank you.

[1:20:30] Thank you. I see no other technical questions. I will move on to the applicant. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It’s Harry Fusios, senior associate with the link of preamble before you this evening on behalf of Highland communities. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my client this afternoon. I’ll be brief. I just wanted to start off by thanking staff for their efforts.

[1:21:02] Unfortunately, we don’t always agree with staff with the recommendations. The recommendation report before you is proof of that, but we certainly recognize and appreciate their efforts in processing these applications, especially under the challenging times that we’re still faced with over the last couple of years. The request for referral before you this evening is to allow more discussion with staff regarding a revised development proposal for the subject lands that includes some element of bonusing in exchange for community benefits such as affordable housing. As was mentioned, the site is currently designated in the 1989 official plan in his zone to permit a high-rise apartment building up to 50 meters, approximately 15 stories high and the density of up to 150 units per hectare.

[1:21:47] Based on the city’s desire for the creation of more affordable housing units in our community, our client saw this as an opportunity to increase the height and density permissions for these lands in exchange for affordable housing units, as well as public day care, space and contributions for local park improvements. As we’re all aware, the principal mechanism currently in place to secure affordable housing from the private development community is through bonusing of additional height and/or density beyond what the current OP official plan policies and zoning allow for. And while our client currently remains willing to provide these community benefits as part of the ultimate development scheme for these lands, it should be noted that there is no requirement to provide any of these benefits under the current zoning permissions.

[1:22:32] We acknowledge and appreciate staff’s efforts on this application. It was pointed out to us early in the process that the proposed height may not be supported. And through subsequent back and forth discussions, there was no indication that any level of intensification or bonusing could be supported. And it would ultimately be left up to council-type or supported or refer it back to staff for more discussion. However, based on recent events and outcomes with a similar application that was brought forward by our firm, we are hesitant to proceed to the PAC recommendation on that basis and feel that more discussions are warranted to give prior to PACF providing a recommendation on this application.

[1:23:11] And notwithstanding, staff’s recommendations refuse the current design. We believe that there is merit in having more discussions with staff to come up with a revised design that will allow our client to achieve some additional intensification that isn’t keeping with existing high-rise built form in the area and still able to provide the city with the community benefits that have been mentioned. I want to thank staff for taking the time over the past week to discuss this matter with us more thoroughly and agreeing to work with us towards providing an appropriate development scheme and avoid, what I believe is a missed opportunity that would benefit both the city and our client.

[1:23:44] We are confident that a mutually agreed-upon development proposal can be reached and we look forward to planning committees referral of the application back to staff. Again, Madam Chair, thank you for the time to present on behalf of our client and I’m able to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. And I’d like to move on to council attorney, technical questions. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps for you to Mr. Fusios. It’s my understanding that affordable housing could be incorporated into any building design and an applicant could work with the housing development corporation to incorporate that.

[1:24:20] Why does that need to be in the context of a financing? Through you, Madam Chair, that it’s one of the mechanisms that that is available to us right now to encourage affordable housing. I mean, this development could have affordable housing regardless of the financing approach, but it was something that we have brought forward on behalf of this client and other clients as sort of an opportunity to be able to get more intensity on a property in exchange for the affordable housing units. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:24:53] I see no other questions from the committee. I would like to go to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments on this application, I’d like to go to committee one and two, please come forward, keeping your mask on and just if you can give us your name and address if you wish and you’ll have up to five minutes, please proceed. Residents of 1030 Coronation Drive, I don’t represent the board necessarily or anybody on the board or others in the building, but my unit looks directly over the proposed development and I look over that property and to me, what is everything that they say they want out of here and reduce spaces and stuff like that.

[1:25:47] Like I just, and I look at their plan development and I say, you’re trying to shoehorn a size nine foot into a size six shoe. Basically, there’s no room for this place. And when they built that commercial development just on off-gainsboro to the north, I remember they’ve called in a real large amount of granular fill before they built the building and they pushed basically all the water to the south and the property parcel that we’re talking about is basically a swamp right now.

[1:26:31] So I can imagine only that they’d have to haul in a bunch of more fill in that to build this structure, a super high structure and so the drainage, like is this water gonna get pushed back on to our property now? What kind of access are they looking at to get to this place off of coronation or wherever off of Gainsboro? I don’t know how they get to it, but at any event, all of the setback concessions that the city might be considering to me, I just can’t see it.

[1:27:17] Thank you. Thank you, sir. We did not get your name. If you could just come forward to the microphone again and state your name, please. Paul Rachar, R-A-C-H-A-R. Thank you, Mr. Rachar. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment on this application? No, that’s one more time. If there’s anyone else in the public that would like to make comments, please come forward.

[1:27:57] I see none, so I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hellier. And with that, we can go to vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair, thank you. Present, closing the vote.

[1:28:29] The motion carries, six to zero. Thank you, and I said to Peter Graham Morgan, the word Councillor is here. Just before I go to the word Councillor and to committee members, I would like to follow up with, I guess, two concerns from the public, one around the drainage issue and the access, how the access is, any concerns around that. And if I can go to whoever would like to speak to that. Madam Chair, I can speak to that on behalf of our client.

[1:29:12] Thank you. We acknowledge that, yeah, we do acknowledge that there are constraints relating to the servicing and to the access, but that is all going to be completed through the planned extension of a public lane way across the frontage of the property. And that will be done in due course. The holding provisions, we’ll deal with that. We have provided a traffic report. Our engineering studies that do demonstrate these lands can be serviced and that access is appropriate for the proposed density that was provided as part of the application. But we expect that those matters can easily be dealt with through subsequent discussions with staff at the appropriate time when the service lane way has been constructed.

[1:29:50] Thank you. Thank you. There was a concern addressed from the public around the drainage issue, maybe going to staff. If they’ve looked at that and any comments from staff. For you, Madam Chair, it’s Mike Corby here. The issues with drainage and stormwater flows or the property would be dealt with at the site plan approval process. And they would have to identify that they can contain the stormwater on site and not impact the above properties. Thank you.

[1:30:27] And the committee will allow me, I won’t go to Deputy Mayor Morgan to make comments. Welcome to planning. Thank you, Chair. So I’ll make some just general comments on the current staff report, although I know that there’s a request for a referral. I think that the staff report is appropriate here for this property. The refusal of this particular application for a number of the reasons mentioned makes a lot of sense. The applicant is right and something for the community to note that without our approval under a certain density, a building of 15 stories could be built today.

[1:31:12] And for that reason, I think staff have made a good call. The London plan in this area is actually headed in the opposite direction, but I recognize what is allowed on the site. If the idea of a referral comes up, I would be supportive of that. And in this case, we’ve heard as our staff are supportive of a referral, the applicant’s supportive of a referral. And I think that there is an opportunity for them to discuss whether or not there’s some element of bonusing that could be incorporated into a design that might have a little more density, but perhaps not more height, although obviously that’s subject to our staff’s recommendations.

[1:31:50] Building a 15 story building without any sort of public good attached to it, I think would be an unfortunate circumstance if it wasn’t pursued. Obviously, this would be the subject of the discussions with our staff to see if there was something that could be appropriately accommodated under all of the processes that they would usually follow. And so to give that time, I think would be an appropriate step. It also gives the public some time to consider this application and what is currently allowed on the site and what they might like to see.

[1:32:22] I know in the current bonusing suggestions, there were a number of things mentioned of which would provide some community benefit, including the affordability of the housing, the building design, and also funding for an unfunded park in the area. There’s a park that’s been allocated and there is no budget for that park. And so I thought that was a creative approach to some of the bonusing. So there’s clearly the opportunity for a discussion here. And I think if the committee is, is would be supportive, a referral of this to our staff to see if there’s a development here that would suit and move towards their ability to recommend it.

[1:33:01] Then I think that giving them that time is probably appropriate. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan, committee members. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, and thank you, Deputy Mayor. For those comments, you know, this area is an open-comer. And I think we have to be very cautious on what goes on here for a long-term impact. Through you, Chair, to staff, what is the height of the development right at the northwest corner of Hyde Park in Gainesville?

[1:33:43] Go to staff on the height from the northwest corner. Through you, Madam Chair, Mike Corby here. If you just want to give us a minute, I believe it was approved at 12 stories, but I’d like to confirm that. Thank you. You know, while he confirms that, it was kind of my general idea. And so I was a little set back to when I saw not only one but two 20-story towers being proposed here, it’s something that I would expect to see downtown. It’s definitely not in keeping with the Hyde Park area here, the village aspect, you know, at the corner.

[1:34:23] There’s a 12 or 15-story building and with commercial on the bottom that I think will really add to the activity in that area. When I first read this, I was tempted to actually vote against referring it because I think it’s so far off what I could, what I’ve envisioned there. However, staff are wiser than I, and I’m sure they have the same concerns. And given Deputy Mayor Morgan, it’s in his ward. I’m sure he has the similar concerns of he believes a referral is the best way to go here.

[1:34:57] Then I will support that. Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair. Hi, Michael over here, I have an answer for the Councillor. They’re approved for 29 meters, roughly eight stories in height. Councillor Layman. That’s, you know, that even adds more weight to my concerns. That’s in keeping with the look of this area and this proposed development. It’s very close to that corner and to other businesses, no one gains a referral that I would consider kind of that marketplace, so to speak.

[1:35:40] So I will be, I’ll be talking to staff about this. So, you know, their vision and Councillor or Deputy Mayor Morgan. You know, what are, what is the city’s vision for this, you know, new coming, you know, like about Wortley, Wortley Village type place, but in the northwest end of London. So, but as I said, I’ll support the referral here for the reasons mentioned. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

[1:36:16] I’d like to go to Mayor Holder. Thanks very much. If Councillor Layman is moving the referral, I’m prepared to second it chair or vice versa as he prefers. What we have is kind of unique situation where we have the, where we have staff, where we have the applicant, we have the Wort Councillor all supporting this referral back, somewhat different than a more recent circumstance or referral back was not successful, but I look forward to the applicant working with staff and hear that for yourself.

[1:36:49] Thank you. Thank you. So we do have a motion on the floor moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by the Mayor, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Glad that Deputy Mayor Morgan had an opportunity to speak. It’s helpful. The referral sounds appropriate on its face without this. I would be very tempted to refuse. The we’ve heard from a number of Councillors so far that the height is a fairly significant departure from what’s permitted here.

[1:37:23] Then the four to six stories that would normally be allowed under the place type is exceeded by historic zoning, which allows up to 15 stories. So that’s a huge jump on its own right. And then the applicants coming forward looking for 33% more, which is a significant ask. And a little gutsy, I guess, which is why I reading through this, I would have been inclined just to move for the refusal outright.

[1:37:56] If there’s an opportunity for a reconciliation of positions between the city and the applicant, that would be really helpful. I think as we’ve heard from a few Councillors so far, there is concern with the height. So I hope that what is brought back isn’t another 20-story building or an 18-story building, that it is limited to 15 stories. And that’s what we’re hearing from my colleagues. I know that might not be universal, but that’s been in the statements of a few people to speak so far.

[1:38:29] So that’s an important piece. I think it’s really also important for us to understand why. Large high density might be inappropriate here. In general, as a council support the idea of trying to get as much housing as we can. And I think that’s a really good overall goal. The challenge is that there’s not the infrastructure to support high density in this circumstance. There’s not transit infrastructure. There’s not necessarily shopping infrastructure. There’s not the ability for that infrastructure to be there.

[1:39:06] But it is in other places. And so the reason why we try to consolidate high density and the high heights to the transit corridor, to the downtown and to the transit villages is because that’s where we need that density to consolidate. Whenever we kind of freelance these things outside of that, then that erodes our ability to be able to consolidate the density along those corridors. In the same way that we need to be able to consolidate our commercial space in the core and not have large commercial towers out on the periphery of the city.

[1:39:42] Because every time we do that, it undermines the viability of the downtown. So I’m intrigued to see what comes back from the referral. I hope that it’s a productive discussion. And I hope that the applicant has had the opportunity to hear the comments of my colleagues on the committee and the deputy mayor as well. Any other comments? I see none if the committee will allow me just to make a brief comment as well. This was something, I was very supportive of the staff’s recommendation to reduce this.

[1:40:22] And I’ve really appreciated the conversation that we’ve had here and Deputy Mayor Morgan being here. With his comments, there is a great difference to what is allowed and what we have in front of us. So I will be supporting the referral back, that it is something that this type of intensity at the outer edges of our city should not be there. They should be in a downtown core. I really feel very strongly that we have our policies in place to support that.

[1:40:57] And if there’s opportunities for further discussions and in particular, if the applicant is listening to this planning committee, it’s really important to take note of how what we should be doing and it all is around that height. It is a great departure from what is allowed. So with that, I’ll be supporting the referral back. And I will go to Deputy Morgan for another comment. Yeah, thank you.

[1:41:32] And I just wanted to add one piece of context ‘cause I know members of the community are listening in and will follow this. And I just wanna let them know why we would entertain referral rather than just outright refusal. With an outright refusal, they can go as of the right within the zoning to go and build a 15 story building within a certain amount of density there now. And given the direction that the London Plan is going, I think that there is a likelihood that they would do that given the discussions that I’ve had. Having an opportunity for one further discussion to see if there is a possibility of a slight increase in density.

[1:42:11] And I agree with Councilor Turner, I would not go height, but density here to see if there is an appropriate trade-off for some public goods, whether that’s design of the building or housing or other trade-offs. That is worth a discussion. But it may be that that discussion with our staff leads to, no, you just build within what is of your right and there aren’t appropriate trade-offs. But it seems like staff is willing to do this. The applicant is willing to do it. And from a perspective of municipal Council, I can tell you it would be better for the community rather than just a 15 story building as is and as of right to get some sort of trade-off for some reasonable increase in density, but not height here.

[1:42:56] I think that that’s worth a conversation, whether or not it works out. I’m not certainly committing myself the voting, either way on this when it comes back to Council, but I’m willing to entertain the discussion. And I want my constituents to know that that is what we are doing today and that they should be very aware of what this particular developer can go and build tomorrow with just a refusal. And that’s 15 story buildings. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan. And with that, we do have a motion moved by Councillor Layman and seconded by Mayor Holder.

[1:43:32] And if we can proceed to vote. You chair, I’ll vote yes. And this is on hold on. The being referred back. That’s correct, Chair. Thank you, my vote stands. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, and we’re moving right along to the next public participation meeting. And this is on 4/14, 4/18 old Wonderland Road.

[1:44:12] This is a site plan public participation meeting with comments to the site plan process. If I can have a member from the committee to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, and it is seconded by Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[1:44:48] And I will look to staff for a brief presentation. I know when this came to us originally there was, it was a bit contentious. And I think it warrant a brief presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Melanie Vivian, site development planner. I will be referencing the presentation starting on 39 of the added agenda in front of you. As noted, the proposed development is located at 4/14, 4/18 old Wonderland Road, which is just south of Spring Bank, drive and north of Teapel Terrace. So the proposed development in front of us consists of 13 townhouse units and eight stacked townhouse units for a total of 29 units on site.

[1:45:28] The development also contains an open space area located in the northeast corner of the subject lands. And this was as a result of the submitted environmental impact assessment that was reviewed through the Zoning Bile Amendment application as well. So the elevations that are shown on page 341 slide two shows both the townhouse and stacked townhouse elevations. Given the grading on the site, the height of the units does vary from roughly seven and a half meters to a maximum of 10.8 meters. And it’s worth noting that the maximum height permitted under the zone is 12 meters.

[1:46:03] So as previously mentioned, the site was re-zoned earlier this year to permit the proposed cluster townhouse development at a density of 50 units per hectare, which is below the maximum permitted density of the Zoning Bile Law. The site does propose a total of 53 parking spaces, being two parking spaces per unit for the townhouse blocks, one in the garage, one in the driveway. A special provision was approved to the rezoning application to allow one parking space for the stacked townhouses. They’ve also provided three visitor parking spaces on site and a lot coverage of 33.4, which is well below the maximum permitted of 45%, and a landscape open space of 38.3.

[1:46:41] So the resolution of council from the rezoning included direction to the site plan approval authority for board on board fencing along the east, north, and south property boundaries that exceeded the standards of the site plan control Bile Law and ensuring the naturalization with the feature restoration and compensation, keeping with the recommendations of the environment impact assessment, ensuring the development degree, the sorakes, ensuring that the development agreement is clear regarding the protection of that compensation area, and then ensuring the creation of the small berm along the edges of the snow storage, just to ensure that the flows are directed back towards the road surface and not towards the pond feature to the north.

[1:47:17] So through the circulation process of the public site plan meeting and the application, we received two comments. One of the responses was just requesting further information on the meeting, and the other was regarding post fencing. So even through the rezoning application, loss of privacy was a prominent matter. So to address council’s resolution and the privacy concerns, the applicant is proposing a 2.1 meter board on board fence along the perimeter of most of the site, along that northern property boundary to mitigate any impacts on that natural heritage feature, just to the east of unit 18 and within that open space zone, a 1.2 meter chain link fence is proposed.

[1:47:56] Around the entirety of the rest of the site, it will be 2.1 meter board on board fencing. With that staff are of the opinion that the proposed plan satisfy council’s resolution. I’m happy to go into more detail and answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vivian. Any technical questions? I see none. I will go to the applicant if the applicant is here. Can you hear me? Yes, Mr. McClure.

[1:48:29] Hi, yes, I’m McClure with 4.14. I don’t have a whole lot to add to know any Vivian’s presentation there. I think she addressed all the major concerns appropriately and I’m just happy to be on standby here to answer any questions like yourself, or amendment of the committee or public might ask. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. McClure. Any technical questions? I see none. I will go to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments, I hear and see none.

[1:49:08] I’ll ask one more time. There’s anyone that would like to make comments to this application. I see none. With that, I’ll go to committee members, Councillor Turner to close the PPM. Madam Chair, I see somebody identified for 3.7 Harry Gossons. Is he with the applicant, or is he one of the community members? Yeah, I’m with the applicant. Great, thanks. Just wanted to be sure. Thank you. So with that, I would like to close the public participation meeting.

[1:49:45] Live by Mayor Holder, seconded by Councillor Lehman. And without begin vote. Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Opposing to vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, I’d like to go to the committee members for comments. Councillor Turner. Thanks Madam Chair, I am thankful to the previous committee for asking these things to be incorporated in site plan.

[1:50:22] I’m the Councillor for the area. This stretch of old Wonderland has seen a fair amount of development and challenges over the past, especially with the Teapal Terrorist development and it’s a very extensive history. So when this came forward within the neighborhood, this was something that was met with us in apprehension. In fact, actually, I remember speaking with people back in 2014 when I was knocking indoors about this. So I’m glad the community had an opportunity to speak at the last, I’m glad there was the opportunity for a public site plan meeting for today.

[1:51:00] It sounds like by the sounds of it, most of the community concerns have been addressed by virtue of not seeing anybody here today, which is perhaps helpful in the comments in the file too. I think, as mentioned, the mitigation measures here are reasonable. My concern goes back to the beginning back when the zoning was approved. It is within the zone, but the zone is the maximum within that zoning class and the zoning by-law doesn’t really contemplate the maximum class within the zone to be applied on peripheral developments.

[1:51:42] It’s meant for core developments. But notwithstanding that, I think this can be a successful application to preserve some of the natural features that contemplate some of those privacy concerns. And hopefully, it ends up being a good infill development and is harmonious with the neighborhood as well. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner. And with that, I am looking for other comments from committee members and a motion to receive the information.

[1:52:22] Mayor Holder is moving the master. Yes, I’ll make that motion. Thank you, Chair. And I’m looking for a seconder. I guess Councillor Hill here, thank you. And if the committee will just allow me to make some brief comments, I completely agree with Councillor, the ward Councillor on the challenges that the community has had in this area with infill development and the changes that are going on in their neighborhood.

[1:52:55] And I really appreciate and the process that we’re allowing the community to take into consideration their concerns, especially around the privacy, the board on board fencing. And the natural heritage area too, that’s why we’re going with the chain length fence as well to accommodate that natural feature of this area and the sensitivity of this development. I want to thank the applicant for the work, working with staff as well.

[1:53:29] So with that, I will look for a motion or we can proceed to vote. Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. With that, moving on to 3.8, which is a public participation meeting not to be heard before six, we’re at 545.

[1:54:04] I wonder if committee members would like to have a break and if we can, so we have about 15 minutes if we want to go 20 minutes. Chair, I wonder if there’s some other issues. I acknowledge the PPM, but I wonder if there’s anything with respect to either items for direction or the further matters that we might be able to deal with just to move this along, but I’m at the pleasure of the chair. Well, we can proceed both ways.

[1:54:38] I’m looking at committee members on how they would like to proceed. We do have items for direction, 4.1 and 4.2, which is receiving reports from the advisory committee on the environment and trees and forests. And then we do have a request for a delegation from Mr. Kirkness. I’m not sure if he is here at the moment. He is not, so I also know we have had an added report from latch two that we will be receiving.

[1:55:23] So committee members, I’m at your pleasure here at how you would like to proceed. Willing to go for a break comes with Lewis and then I’ll go to the mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not sure that the deferred matters or the items for direction, especially as Mr. Kirkness isn’t here, yet are something that the reports from the advisory committees, I think could be dispensed with pretty quickly.

[1:55:57] But without Mr. Kirkness here, I think it’s just appropriate that we take a 15 minute recess and resume at 6 p.m. as scheduled. Hey, I see some nods, Mayor Holder. Care respectfully, no, I don’t agree because it’s nice to get business done that’s cleaner, easier without the other public things that stand there. If the committee votes to take a break, I mean, typically we don’t do that even in our own council meetings until 6 30 and it’s a bit of ways away. But I’m at your pleasure.

[1:56:32] If the count, I would just soon move on with the issues we can move on with. And because all these things take the time they take, but whatever the group wants, Chair, and but I would prefer that we carry through, but at your pleasure, you’re the Chair. Thank you, Mayor Holder, for those comments. And I guess we can slowly talk how we to six o’clock here. Councilor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m supportive of the Marissa Initiative on this. I think we can do 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and possibly 5.2. We don’t have to do 4.3 at this point, and we can take care of those rather quickly.

[1:57:11] Okay, so if we’re okay with that, we will proceed. So we’ll go to items for direction. We will not deal with 4.3, which is a delegation request. We’ll go to 4.1 and 4.2. So committee, just looking to see if any comments and receiving these reports. Councilor Turner. I’ll move the request, I think it was with respect to 5.2 that the advisory committee’s comments be forwarded to municipal councils through PECS.

[1:57:51] Which report is that? Sorry, I just want to make sure I’m— And the advisory committee on the environment’s report. Okay. Is that where we are? I believe that’s where we are. Okay. And looking for a seconder and Councillor Layman. And if you can proceed to vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair, thank you. And thank my colleagues for carrying on. I’m too, Mr. Mayor. So I note you’re very good tonight. (laughing) Sorry.

[1:58:26] (laughing) Closing the vote, the motion carries 60-0. Moving on to four of the trees and forest advisory committee. Looking to see to receive your report. Mayor Holder. Happy to receive that report, Chair, thank you. Looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman. Do you know comments we can proceed to vote? Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you.

[1:59:29] Closing the vote, the motion carries 60-0. Chair, sorry, Chair, excuse me. Is there any chance that Mr. Kirkness is here? I have checked, he is not. Thank you. I’d like to proceed to 5.1, the deferred matters list. I would prefer just waiting on that one committee members if we want to approve the list right now but we can wait until the end of the meeting on that.

[2:00:06] 5.2 is the last report. And as noted at the beginning of the meeting, there are two items that are on the last report. The first one was on the consent item 2.10 on Albion Street, which is 4.2. And the second one, which is still to be heard is 3.950 King Street, 4.1. So looking to committee to approve the report. Mayor Holder, Councillor Turner.

[2:00:46] Thank you. Just a quick clarification on 4.1. If we received this at this point, have we dealt with the actual agenda item in our agenda by doing so, or do we have to hold this for a second in order to proceed? Looks like Ms. Westlake Power might have an answer to that. Ms. Westlake Power. Yes, through the Chair, Council is the decision-making body.

[2:01:21] So it’s certainly within your prerogative to accept the recommendations of the latch committee but that does not bind the council decision. That will be based on the staff report that’s also on your agenda. So we can proceed, committee members. You would like to make comments on the latch report, Mayor Holder.

[2:01:57] Again, just to confirm, I’m happy to receive that report, Chair. Looking for a seconder, Councillor Lehman. Chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries 6-0.

[2:02:33] Do you have two items from direction still to vote on? The deferred matters list and the delegation request. And with that, Councillor Turner. I’ll not resist. If we can have a time to get back, it’s six o’clock. So that’s almost 10 minutes, committee members. Looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis, do we need a hand vote? You can do a hand vote, see you in nine, thank you.

[2:15:44] Well, welcome back members to the Planning Environmental Committee, we are proceeding to our next public participation meeting, which is 3.8. And this is on the adoption and the adoption of the environmental management guidelines. I’m looking to the committee to open up the public participation meeting. Opening committee members are here.

[2:16:17] Councillor Lehman is opening it up. And it’s second by Councillor Hillier. Sure, I’ll vote yes. That, I’m just looking to see if all committee members are here. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. I would like to go to staff for a presentation. Good evening, Chair Hopkins, members of PEC staff and members of the public.

[2:16:56] Through you, Chair Hopkins, this is Emily Williamson, a college’s planner and planning and development for item 3.8, found on page 345 of the agenda package. This will be a brief oral presentation, providing background of what the environmental management guidelines are, the consultation process to update this document, as well as key recommendations. This is a request to adopt the environmental management guidelines. The environmental management guidelines are a city guideline document that provide additional technical detail for the implementation of London plan policies, setting out in more detail the requirements of environmental studies for development and site alteration.

[2:17:34] The previous environmental management guidelines were approved by Council as a complete document in 2007. Since then, updates to municipal, provincial and federal policy and guidance, as well as updates to scientific understanding, have resulted in a guideline that is out of date. 2019, the update process was initiated. The revised EMGs recommended for adoption are found on pages 351 to 496 of the agenda package. The previous engagement during pre-consultation, phase one and phase two project stages included 20 meetings with external resource groups and First Nations communities.

[2:18:14] A second draft was circulated to various groups in October 18th, 2021, Planning Environment Committee meeting. Incorporating the April 18th, 2021, London Plan Appeals Policy Resolution. Given the extent of the revisions and the length of the document, staff extended a one month review period to external groups and provided an opportunity for additional meetings per group and where possible to discuss and where possible resolve any outstanding questions or concerns. This resulted in three additional meetings with six external resource groups.

[2:18:49] Comments received associated with those meetings and the October 18th draft are found on pages 497 to 536. Staff have updated and clarified the guidelines based on this input. A red line version of the changes made from the October 18 draft to the recommended guidelines is available on pages 537 to 688. A summary list of these changes is noted in section 2.0 of the report under changes resulting from meetings. Special consideration was given to distinguish between the full and scoped EIS, language refinement associated with the buffer table, the distinction between woodlands and significant woodlands and greater clarity with respect to permitted uses within buffers, including additional text to support pathways and LIDs.

[2:19:41] The proposed guidelines are consistent with the provincial policy statement, the natural heritage reference manual and the London plan, changes to the 2020 environmental management guidelines draft focused on reducing redundancy, improving clarity, aligning the guidelines with the approved London plan policy and incorporating comments where appropriate. Thank you. This concludes my brief presentation. Staff are available to answer any questions you may have. And in addition, we have our external consultants, Dr. Gary App of ACOM and Margo Yersick of granted solution services limited.

[2:20:16] They’re with us tonight and are able to speak to some of the research and development of these guidelines and how the guidelines compare with other municipalities. Thank you, Ms. Williamson. I’d like to go to committee members if they’ve got any technical questions of staff. I see none. I’d like to go now, go to the public. Sandy Levin, chair, environmental and ecological planning advisory committee. Mr. Levin, welcome.

[2:20:50] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of committee. I want to start by thanking staff for being involved in leading this very extensive process, but it’s the right process for a document that’s important to the municipality in so many ways. I’d encourage you to adopt this guideline document. The other piece that I’d like to recommend that the committee add to the recommendation is that the biannual update that’s referred to in the staff report be added to your deferred list, having been around as long as I have, I know once it’s on a deferred list, it then gets the attention it deserves.

[2:21:36] And I know staff have already put it into their work plan for 2023, but I think it would be appropriate for this committee to add to its deferred list. Other than that, Madam Chair, again, I want to thank staff, the consultants. We’ve come a long way and it might be a precedent that both EPAC and LDI are in the same place. We urge you to adopt and we look forward to the biannual review. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:22:09] Thank you. Brendan Samuels. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Excellent, thanks, sorry, I’m calling from the road. I want to echo Sandy’s comment. I have been working with G-pac on a few of the environmental management guidelines a few years now. I want to thank staff for all the work that they’ve participated in for including us in this process. The guidelines definitely strengthen protections for the natural heritage system for their 2007 heart assessor.

[2:22:46] So I would urge the planning committee to adopt the current draft of the environmental management guidelines. I would also suggest that, given that we’re incorporating new language into the guidelines, we’re not going to know how effective the updated language is until the guidelines are put in place, so I would suggest this and you recommended that this be revisited in the future and that there be regular follow-up from staff to comment on how the implementation of the updated guidelines is going. I would also like to ask the committee if they can clarify with staff the nature of a certain piece of the guidelines concerning the use of citizen science data.

[2:23:25] I included a letter of the feeding agenda about why this is in appendix C data collection standards. It says it is recommended that reputable citizen science data sources, such as iNaturalist and the Ontario reptile and incapion appis, be reviewed when conducting a background review to implement data obtained by the consultant. I would like to clarify whether this means reviewing citizen science data sources is optional or it’s expected and required. The reason this is important is because when consultants go out and do studies, they only really get a snapshot of what exists in a given study area.

[2:24:05] So species that are present, features, and functions. And there are now today’s technology databases contributed by the public, which have records going back many years of species efforts. I would like to clarify whether reviewing those data sets is something that is expected of because I think it will only take data to make these studies. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sandex.

[2:24:39] Mike Wallace, to Wallace, welcome. Mike Wallace, I’m the representative of LDI. Been here many times. Appreciate it. I wore my green tie tonight. Just, you know, environmental guidelines started at the part least anyways. Listen, I’m also here, there was a letter we put forward in support of the guidelines as presented to be adopted. First of all, I also want to thank staff.

[2:25:12] They did include us and the Home Build Association actively in discussing the present guidelines, the future guidelines, the guidelines that you see in front of you. I’m assuming Emily Williamson will be glad she will be hearing from me again for a while. So I do appreciate all the effort that went into this because these guidelines were 2007, that’s 15 years ago. There was a lot of work involved. We had obviously the issues with the COVID challenge and making sure we got this done.

[2:25:47] So we do appreciate that. A few things in here that we do appreciate. Look, let’s be frank. We didn’t agree with everything that’s in here. I have 10 pages of changes that we wanted that we didn’t get. We got some of them, but there were things we wanted. But what was missing and what we’re looking forward to is what the previous speakers talked about was an opportunity to review this. And it’s every other year at this point. And we, as we review the design manual, I don’t know if you know this, but we just reviewed the design manual every year.

[2:26:21] We think this kind of document, these are guidelines that need to be that are gonna be part of the London plan. They need to be reviewed, science changes. And we need to make sure that we know what’s working and what isn’t working. We are fully supportive of helping and protecting the natural heritage here in London. But this document affects our industry 100%. We are the implementers of the design guidelines. The development, it’s this rating, it’s for the development.

[2:26:57] It’s for the development community on how they should operate with the natural heritage here in London. So we like the changes that are happening in terms of, there’s an opportunity for compensation. And that wasn’t in the previous documents. We have proven to monitoring, we are supportive, not necessarily agreeing with everything, but we’re supportive of an update that was well overdue. And we appreciate staff’s effort. We appreciate the recognition that this needs to be done on a more regular basis.

[2:27:30] And I can guarantee we’ll be at the table giving you our input as we did this time. And again, thank you for putting this together and making it happen. And we look forward to working with you guys in the future. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment? I see none. I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to make comments.

[2:28:11] I see none. And with that committee, I’d like to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillier. And with that, we can vote. Carole, yes, thank you. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Committee members, questions, comments. I’d like to follow up with Mr. Samuels, a question from the public participation meeting around the citizen science base consultation process and how it’s going to be implemented in the environmental guidelines.

[2:29:02] So Ms. Williamson, if I can go to you? Through the chair, Emily Williamson. With respect to citizen science, we included language in Appendix C around should, strictly because in all cases, not every single database will be relevant to a given site. It is something that we include. It is something that we allow for professional consultants to use their judgment. And it’s not just these platforms that we potentially get information from local naturalists.

[2:29:39] There’s always opportunities to have baseline data sets and background, but it’s important to note that that background then constitutes a trigger for potential studies. So the data itself, we need to include citizen science as the starting point from which it’s verified by our consultants, not as a means to create habitat, if you will. So it’s just finding that balance. So we did include should language. Again, the site specific item, allowing for professional consultants to be professional consultants and ecologists and go out and do their work.

[2:30:19] And just noting that not all potential habitat is verifiable necessarily in every case. Thank you. And with that, I’d like to go to committing members any questions. Councillor Lehman. I’ll move the staff recommendation. And I have a seconder in Councillor Turner. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Annette. If I might, perhaps it’s translate to Councillor Lehman’s motion that we also add the biennial review to Councils or the committee’s deferred matters list.

[2:31:01] If we can just have a moment, get that included. I know was mentioned by a number of people from the public to have it included. And that would be added to the deferral list. That is, of course, if it’s amenable to Councillor Lehman. Councillor Lehman.

[2:31:35] If I may, through you chair, just ask question to staff. Recurring that, through you then. Staff, will this add, is this a good way to address this with, I don’t want, I’m cautious of adding to staff the workload. I hear from all parties that an update is important. I just want to hear their opinion on the need for a biennial update or what an annual update work better for them.

[2:32:13] If I can go to staff, and I know we’re just referring to updates, biennial updates. Correct, I just want to know if a biennial update is kind of the preferred way. I know an update is needed. I’m just trying to get an idea of timing for staff. Is it effective, I guess, to have a biennial update or is it in their opinion most effective to have an annual update? To the chair, it’s Greg Barrett speaking.

[2:32:54] We’re recommending that this be a biennial update, not an annual update. There’s a bit of a difference between this and a design manual. The reason for the biennial update, quite honestly, is we want to make sure this works. And as members of this committee known, members of council, environmental matters, just even on an application, very often go for three seasons, so they even would extend beyond a year, just on a single application. So to get some sense that the guidelines were working or whether or not there were issues with it, I would suggest to you that doing that every year is not really going to solve or give you much information, but there is a commitment and a recommendation that we come back at least every two years.

[2:33:37] And that’s based, I think, the very first, one of the first sentences in Ms. Williamson’s presentation was that council last approved this comprehensive package in 2007. And staff, the ecological environmental community and the development community realizes that’s way too long for a document like this to be sitting without a revision. And so that’s one of the reasons why this revision process took so long. But it’s also one of the reasons why, in our recommendation to you, that we come back when we do this every two years.

[2:34:11] So I think that that’s the appropriate period of time for us to see how they’re working after this first go around and then subsequent go rounds after that, we can get a chance and make sure that they’re working and certainly not leave it for a 14 year gap before we come back and give them a revision. With respect to putting on the deferred matters list, that’s certainly, I mean, that could be the world of the committee, but I just sort of say that that’s certainly something that’s very unusual, that at the same time that you’re actually seeing something and adopting it in the first instance, you’re gonna say, oh, and put it on your list to come back.

[2:34:48] That is part of our recommendation. And I know as staff, notwithstanding the comment from Mr. Levin, we do know the things that are priorities. We do keep records of those things that we make the commitments to you. And as noted, it’s already in our work plan to make sure that we do come back on this. But to have it popping up every two months for the next two years is sort of gonna be, I think, just perhaps a little bit of an overkill to say, come back, come back, come back when, in fact, we’re making that commitment to you.

[2:35:24] Thank you. Councillor Layman. Thank you. Yeah, I understand what staff are saying here. As far as the deferred matters list, it’s implicit that we’d be directing them to come back on a biennial basis. I’d be curious just to hear the movement, that friendly amendment, you know, his thoughts on that. That’s for you, Madam Chair.

[2:35:57] Thank you. I think it works either way. I mean, it might be a redundant motion. It’s a paragraph or a sentence in our deferred matters list that comes back to us. It could be handled a couple of ways. As Mr. Barrett identified, they have a timeline on it. The only challenge is that this is going to bridge terms of council. So it depends on what the composition of next council is and how much kind of quote-unquote corporate memory there is. So it helps as kind of an ed memoir for the new members of the committee coming on.

[2:36:36] But I’m good either way. I’m assured by Mr. Barrett’s statements that it is on the work plan and it would return. But I think the planning staff have that same risk that they might have attrition or movement through the organization and it could get lost in that too. So it’s just one way of keeping it on the radar. No, hold it.

[2:37:08] Thanks, Chair. We don’t wipe the slate clean now with the new council. If it’s deferred matters, they carry on. I appreciate Mr. Barrett’s comments. But by any review, I think that makes some sense. I’m pleased that Councillor Turner is amenable to that. If that is ultimately how it goes, I think that makes a world of sense to have that. And if there’s something urgent comes in between that needs review, I would say to you that we will deal with that because this particular committee and various groups who are committed to it will keep us accountable as well.

[2:37:45] And this will live on between council terms. So I would imagine that if we have this every two year review knowing as issues come forward, that we would deal with them as they come up, that seems to make a world of sense. And I don’t think I need to jump into first or second. I think that Councillor Turner has acknowledged it. I think Councillor Turner, or pardon me, Councillor Lehman has seconded it, but I’ll leave it for them to confirm it. But if not, I’m happy to come back in on any part of that as you wish.

[2:38:20] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too think that the fact that the bi-annual view is already recommended by staff, to me, quite honestly, that’s sufficient. And I say this with all due respect to Mr. Levin, I don’t think when the deferred matters list just gets longer and longer and longer with things, it’s actually really that helpful in providing a reminder. And in fact, I’m mindful of the last community protective services committee and right at the very first meeting, Councillor Helmer was chairing, and we actually went over the deferred matters list in terms of what could be removed.

[2:39:07] ‘Cause in fact, sometimes items stay on the list, they don’t even get noticed for removal, and they’ve been completed. And also what items we’re gonna really focus on, making sure that the committee cleared off, and we did those and shrunk that deferred matters list considerably, quite a number of items which didn’t need our reminder because staff brought them back as promised and they were delivered on. So I understand the desire for the reminder. I just, I’m not really enthusiastic about just adding it to the deferred matters list. I think that our staff do a very commendable job of carrying things over as staff transitions happen.

[2:39:47] And I think that Councillors as well, whether it’s this iteration of Council or obviously as this is gonna stretch terms, the next iteration of Council, there are lots of folks out in the community who will, as the Mayor mentioned, also be looking to keep us accountable on this. So, I mean, this isn’t one that I feel particularly strongly about either way and the direction the committee goes. I mean, I’m fine to support the staff recommendation. I just, I’m always cautious about adding things to the deferred matters list for the sake of just putting in a reminder that we have to revisit them.

[2:40:21] Those reports come back to us as staff are able to produce them. And so I’m comfortable in trusting that they will do so. Are there any other comments from committee members? It’s being done. I’d like to make a comment from the chair and appreciate everyone’s comments. I guess we’re debating. I vote either way and direction the committee goes. I mean, I’m fine to support. Just one moment, please. Not sure who was speaking there, but I think we heard you.

[2:40:57] Oh, sorry about that, okay. So that was just a lag in the live stream. So I’ll just proceed speaking from the chair. And here we’re debating if it’s to go on the deferral list or not. I have no problem having it go on the deferral list. I think it, you know, it is a reminder. And as we change councils and as staff changes to have that on there, I’m sure the stakeholders in the community will hold us accountable.

[2:41:31] It is in the recommendation that it be reviewed on an annual basis, but we do not have a long list. And I think it could be easily, if it’s not making sense to be removed down the road that having it put on the deferral list is there’s no harm in having that as a reminder. These are important guidelines that need to be updated. And it just makes us aware as a committee as to that they exist. And there’s a lot of work that’s gone into it and how we update them is going to be important in the future.

[2:42:12] So I am supportive of putting it on the list. I could go, I’ll just leave it at that. I’ll go back to Councilor Turner to follow up that Councilor Turner. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not sure if it, I think Councillor Layman have the floor and I just seconded and asked for that amendment. I’m happy to make comments on the motion in general once the floor is mine, but I think it’s Councillor Layman before me.

[2:42:45] Councillor Layman. Thank you. At the risk of playing ping pong. My concern was echoed. I want to keep a clean deferred matters list. However, I’ll support a friendly amendment with Councillor Turner. If that’s a direction he believes we should go. He’s been a Councillor over a couple of terms, but maybe his mind has been changed a bit just hearing the desire to keep a cleaner deferred matters list. So ping pong back to Councillor Turner.

[2:43:22] And if I can just, before I go to Councilor Turner, I would like to vote on Mr. Barrett. Thank you, if you, Madam Chair. I didn’t mean to come in and speak at this point and in your thing, I just wanted, before, after you voted, before you were all done with this matter, I just wish to speak to it. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Turner. Yeah, great. If we can keep it on, I think that’d be best. This is, maybe I’ll make my quick comments right now then, as to why what you heard from community members and the development community was really important.

[2:44:06] This is a really fundamental document and it’s really important that it’s as up-to-date as possible because this creates the framework for environmental impact studies and it allows developers to know what’s expected when they move forward with developments adjacent to environmental areas and environmental features. The ambiguity of out-of-date recommendations and guidelines creates a lot of conflict and creates a lot of unneeded delay in the planning process.

[2:44:47] Because there’s a lot of dispute over the interpretation of a lot of the items. I spent nine years on the environmental and ecological planning advisory committee. The environmental management guidelines were almost a bible to us and it was the lens through which we looked at all environmental impact studies. And it’s also that lens that the consultants for the developers use as they’re preparing environmental impact studies for staff in their applications. So you heard Mr. Wallace talk about how helpful this is and I think this is a really important context for all the development discussions that we have is having a clear framework and a clear guidelines for how development occurs within the city is helpful to the development industry.

[2:45:40] It’s not a hindrance, it’s good to be able to identify what the parameters for development are. And the biannual review allows us to come to the table and to continue the discussion. So it’s a live discussion and this document is a living document. So it’s great to see that recognition of it. It’s been 14 years as Mr. Ms. Williamson and Mr. Barrett have both identified, that’s a long time. And so that’s part of the reason for the bit of the apprehension for not having it on the deferred matters list is because this has been an item that has needed update for a long time.

[2:46:23] I’m so excited that we’re here at this point but I wanna make sure that the progress on this isn’t lost and that the momentum is still there because I think it does need to be front of mind considering the importance of this specific document to helping how development proceeds within the city. Thank you, Councillor Turner. I’d like to go to Mayor Holder. Well, thank you very much, Chair. I’ve heard this and I, you know what? I have deep respect for what Councillors Turner and even what I’ve heard Councillor Layman saying about trying to be thoughtful and sensitive to these issues.

[2:47:04] What I’ve also heard from staff is that they have a very specific intention for the biannual review. So every two years that’s back up on the table. And I might feel Councillor Lewis saying that, you know what? We need to clean up lists. Otherwise it’s talking about talking and we in politics do that too often. But here’s the beauty of this. We know that staff have acknowledged that this is something that comes up as part of that review. So my sincere intention is to not support a going on the deferred matters list.

[2:47:42] And if that’s ultimately the motion and I will ask the Chair to share what that is, I will not support it. But I will support the fact that staff are going to deal with this as appropriate because you know what, we’re really good in politics of giving attributable make work projects that are already in place. And we may hurry it up and sometimes that makes sense. But I think this biannual review is fair and makes sense. So Chair, when it comes to the motion, if assuming we’ve got that already in place, but if not, I need to understand exactly what that is please so that we can deal with it accordingly.

[2:48:32] But from my perspective, I think staff have this well in hand. I think they are, they’re mindful of what the requirements need to be. So I’ll look to you for some advice as to what that actually looks like, thank you. So I think we don’t want to lose the motion and maybe we can just pull this out as an amendment. Can we do that? And then I could go to the clerk. Yes, and I’ll go to Councilor Turner.

[2:49:08] Madam Chair, if it’s cleaner for everyone, let me take it off as a friendly amendment. I’ll make it as a second amendment. So I’ll second Councilor Layman’s motion. I will make an amendment and we can hear those as separate votes that so we can have the main motion, which is the acceptance and the adoption of the environmental management guidelines. And then, and I would second Councilor Layman’s motion on that, I would also make a proposed amendment that additionally, or maybe even a part B that additionally that the bi-annual review, as mentioned in the EMGs, is also added to the Council, or sorry for the committee’s different matters list.

[2:49:56] And I would look for a seconder for that. Okay, we’ll do one thing at a time. So we’ll go in the main motion. Councilor Turner is seconding the main motion. And now we can speak to the amendment. I’m not sure if Clerks is ready to proceed with a clause B at this moment to add the bi-annual review on the deferred matters list. And I know the mayor has asked for that as well. So can we just get clarification on B part?

[2:50:33] So right now the current, the staff recommendation, there’s a part A and a part B. So the current staff recommendation that on the recommendation of the director of planning and development, the following actions we’ve taken with respect to the environmental management guidelines update, part A, the environmental management guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 13th, 2021 as appendix one to appendix A, be adopted as a municipal council guideline document and part B, the proposed by law appended to the staff report dated December 13th, 2021 as appendix A, B introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on December 21st, 2021 to adopt the environmental management guidelines appended to the staff report dated December 13th, 2021 in accordance with London Plan Policy 1713.

[2:51:28] So that is the main recommendation. Then for part C as a secondary recommendation, the bi-annual review as outlined in the environmental management guidelines be added to the planning and environment committee deferred riders list. And I just want to get agreement from the mover of that amendment, which is now C. And I guess we need a seconder for that. We can go with the main motion and then the amendment and that the will of the committee here, Councillor Lewis.

[2:52:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just thinking procedurally, it should be the amendment first and then the main motion as amended if the amendment passes. I would agree. So let’s go on the amendment, which is now added as a C and mayor holder. Could I ask the clerk just to read C again, I don’t have the advantage at home or somewhere else where I might be, but it is home to look that up on East cribe. So could I be sure, please? Yes.

[2:52:53] Part C, the bi-annual review as outlined in the environmental management guidelines be added to the planning and environment committee deferred matters list. Has that been duly seconded chair and or can I comment if it has been? I think there is a motion on the floor by Councillor Turner, I will second it. So chair, can I comment, please? Yes.

[2:53:25] So in the spirit of the never ending lists and I’m mindful what Councillor Halmer did to clean up deferred matters. I have no doubt that the people who are committed to these issues will ensure that this council and future councils will pay attention to such matters. I’m not sure that Frank, they want to add another piece to the deferred matters list. So I’m going to vote against this particular amendment. Thank you. And just before we proceed, I would like to go to Ms. Westlake Power.

[2:54:01] Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to provide a little bit of procedural clarity if I may. You are at committee, so these can be voted on separately. And then when the recommendation as a whole comes forward to council, it will be an A, B and C, but it’s not necessary to amend the motion and then vote on the motion as amended. The C part, the addition can be voted on separately from the staff recommendation and we’ll just move forward from there. And I hope that’s helpful.

[2:54:34] It is. So chair may I ask that that be separated, please? It is. Thank you. And with that, any other comments from the committee? On the motion. Sorry chair, with the disadvantage of not having me ascribed the motion, which part, all of it, or C, what are we referencing, please?

[2:55:08] We can, we’re going to have it. We can pull A, B and C separate when we vote, but I’m looking for comments from committee. Councillor Layman. I would recommend that we vote on, so we entight A and B together and then vote on C separately. Yes, we can do that, A and B and then C separate, E. I am looking at committee again for any comments. And if you allow me, I’d like to, I’ve got a couple of questions from the chair as it relates to these changes and how they are going to move forward.

[2:55:56] I’ll just make some comments here about the importance of having this update from 2007. It’s been a long time coming and it really is important given the significant changes that have occurred through two new PPSs and the London Plan and also the importance of science knowledge and how that is needed to be updated. These are, I want to thank staff for the consultation and the work that they started three years ago on this.

[2:56:33] It’s been a long time coming and it’s good to have it here and it’s good to support these new guidelines. I do have a couple of questions to staff as it relates to the monitoring and the compensation, the site-specific compensation, how that is going to work moving forward and know there’s some sort of a lot of work that needs to be done here and I’d like to have a general idea how we can expect this work to be done when it comes to the monitoring and the work that needs to be done around the compensation to staff.

[2:57:20] Madam Chair, it’s Matt Felberg speaking. I can speak to monitoring and then I’ll throw it over to one of my colleagues to talk a little bit about the compensation. So we’ve actually got a couple draft plans over the past couple of years where we’ve included monitoring through to the build-out phase and we’re at a point now, we haven’t reached the point yet where we can actually start to assess that information. We haven’t got to the assumption stage. So there’s still a little bit of work to do there, but we do on a regular basis assess the efficacy of sediment erosion control measures and we’re always checking on those to see how the limits between features and the development are caring for through the build-out.

[2:58:07] But in addition, in the 2019 DC study, we included a new program that was called a post-assumption monitoring program and that funding was allocated so that we could go back and look at some of the older developments in town and see how the recommendations from the EIS have gone over the build-out post-assumption and all that other work since then. The consultant has finished the first-year monitoring and we’re just going through the data right now and the plan is to report back to EPAC and planning committee sometime in 2022 and not to bring up the deferred matters list, but there is an item on the deferred matters list talking about homeowner packages.

[2:58:56] And one of the things that we were planning on doing is using some of the recommendations or information we were seeing from the consultant to help inform how we can improve those homeowner packages and identify what it is that folks are living adjacent to. So with that, I’ll throw it over to Ms. Williamson or Mr. Edwards to talk a little bit about compensation. Thank you for that information. Ms. Williamson. Through the Chair, Emily Williamson. In terms of the compensation section of the EMG section six, we put in wording specific to a forthcoming framework.

[2:59:37] Toronto Region Conservation Authority has set out an excellent example of what this could look like, but there’s substantial backup house pieces that need to be resolved. And in an effect, this is a project in and of itself. So we have included appropriate language within the EMGs to allow for updates. And as per the biennial update process, we will be able to incorporate the changes once this appendix is completed. We intend to include public consultation and sorry, technical expert consultation as part of this.

[3:00:13] So with the various external groups that have been involved in the process thus far, it will also provide a little bit more information on what that compensation is going to look like. So certainly through the April 18 London Plan Appeal resolution, we do have specific policies in place that speak to the fact that in certain instances, while following the mitigation hierarchy, where we avoid, we limit the disturbance to a natural heritage system, and then we mitigate before we even consider compensation.

[3:00:48] We have, oh, we included numerous other pieces. So at this time, we do feel that the compensation piece is unfinished. We look forward to resolving it as part of upcoming works in the subsequent year. And I will pass it back to you, Adam Chair. Yeah, thank you for that information. I think it’s important for us to know that there’s still some work to be done and that compensation in particular is still a last resort.

[3:01:23] So I really am supportive of the changes. It’s pretty important that we move forward with this. And thanks, staff, for all the work that they’ve done. I see a mere holders. Yes, I’ll thank you, Chair. I wanna honor our staff for what they have said with regard to dealing with these issues. But we’re coming a long way from whether or not something gets on a deferred matters list or not.

[3:01:57] And so I’m just trying to pull it a little bit tighter and say, what was the original objective? So we kind of sometimes forget that while we’re surrounded by alligators, kind of curious to imagine that our original objective was to clear the swamp. All we’re trying to do here, I think, and you’ll correct me, I’m sure you will, that what we’re trying to do is decide what goes on for matters list or not. My God, I think we’ve gotten every which way on this issue. And the real question is, how do we make sure that we hold each other to account to make sure these things get done in a thoughtful and proper way?

[3:02:38] That’s all. And I’m confident the staff can help us do that. So I’m gonna go back to the original mover and seconder. I think I almost forget the motion now, but I really do appreciate that we’re trying to have a thoughtful discussion, but let’s just kind of get this done because this feels painful, that we’re trying to get to what I think is actually a fairly simple place. So please help me understand it a bit, sure, if you would please. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, happy to do that. So we have the original recommendation A and B together. So we are going to be adopting it and we’re introducing the by-law moving forward.

[3:03:17] And then there is that C clause that is going to allow for the by-annual review to go on the deferral matters list. That is C clause and we’re separating that out. So you can vote on A and B and then C separately. And with that, if I don’t see any committee comments, I will go to Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[3:03:55] I was having a hard time opening my mic. I just want to just take this time to pass on some thanks and appreciation all the folks have been involved. This has been a long process. It actually started back in August of 2019. And it started back in August of 2019 and pre-consultation with what we called the external review groups. And that was members of the development community, members of the ecological environment community and the first nations. And this process has been actually, well, it’s been long, it’s been a great process.

[3:04:30] And I believe that the outcome that’s in front of you this evening is actually a great outcome from that process. In between all of this and what made it take a little bit longer was that we finally had the London plant hearings dealing with natural heritage matters. And once those matters were dispensed with, we had a solid policy basis on which to go forward and make sure that these guidelines were appropriate to implement those policies. And so what’s in front of you, while we’ve only been at this for about 40 minutes, 45 minutes this evening, is really two and a half years worth of work.

[3:05:07] And it’s two and a half years worth of work, not just by staff, but by those external resource groups who we dealt with. The development community came to the table, they came to the table willing to talk, they came to the table with written comments, which is very helpful. The same thing from the ecological and environmental communities. And so I just really felt it was appropriate to take this time to thank those folks. And also I’ve really got to thank our staff. Emily Williamson has been living and breathing these things for quite some time.

[3:05:41] And we told her that this was going to be her Christmas present, that in fact we get that done and Santa was going to come early. And I’m not presupposing what’s going to come out of this vote this evening, but it sounds like in fact Santa might deliver. And I just want to pass on my thanks to Emily and to Kevin Edwards for shepherding this process through on the staff side. And then to those consultants, we brought in to help us through this A-com at the outset. And then Margot Yersick who worked with us on the London Plan Appeals. This was a lot of work.

[3:06:14] This is a really, really good document that’s in front of you. We’re very, very comfortable with it. Where we know it reflects the latest and greatest thinking. And I think that this council can very, be very proud of the fact that they are ensuring that London actually stays at the forefront in this province on dealing with environmental matters and making sure that we all know how we’re going to deal with these policies and how we’re going to make sure that London moves forward in the future with a great, strong, conserved, maintained and enhanced national environment.

[3:06:47] But at the same time, providing for appropriate development. And we’re very, very happy to have this in front of you this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Councillor Turner. Oh, that was a reaction. That was my applause. (laughing) I quite agree. It’s a good day. And I see no further comments from committee. We can proceed to vote and just a reminder that we are going to be voting on A and B first, which is the staff’s recommendation.

[3:07:29] Chair, I’ll vote yes to that. Thank you. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Chair, can I ask that the next piece be read, please? Part C, the by-annual review as outlined in the Environmental Management Guidelines. Be added to the Planning and Environment Committee for matters list.

[3:08:20] Naying up the vote. Traveled no, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion loses on a tie vote. With that, it’s a tie vote. So there is no recommendation coming from the Planning Committee on C.

[3:08:59] With that, we’ll move on to the next and our last public participation meeting for the evening is 3.9. And this is on 50 King Street, a demolition request. Committee members, let’s open up the PPM, Councillor Lewis. Councillor Layman. Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

[3:09:41] And I’d like a brief presentation. Thank you. This is Kyle Ganyu Heritage Planner. This is a demolition request for the existing building located at 50 King Street within the downtown heritage conservation district designated pursuant to part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property was formerly part of the courthouse block property, but was severed by Middlesex County in 2014 and sold to the current property owner in 2019.

[3:10:15] The courthouse block was the historic center for the administration of justice in the London district. At its zenith, it included the courthouse, the jail, the police station, the county administrative building or the surrogate court annex, the county registry office and the city registry office. Of those buildings, only the courthouse and jail remain. The courthouse is a national historic site of Canada protected by an easement held by the Ontario Heritage Trust, as well as individually heritage designated. The jail is also individually heritage designated.

[3:10:50] The whole area is designated as part of the downtown heritage conservation district, which came into force in 2013. The building at 50 King Street was designed by architect David C. Stevens and built by Quinnie Construction. It was opened by a premier Leslie Frost in 1959 as the Middlesex Municipal Building. It housed the county’s administrative offices, the county library and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The building was the seat of Middlesex County Council from 1959 until 1981.

[3:11:25] As the debate regarding the courthouse block was settled with the restoration of the courthouse and jail in the late ’70s and early ’80s, the county’s administrative and council chambers moved into those buildings. A major renovation was planned, but was changed in the design and materials with a much more subdued building designed by the architect Norbert Schuller and constructed by Patrick Enright Construction in 1986. The renovations left very few remnants of the original buildings, and I’m referring to images 15 and 16 on pages 719 and 720 of the Peck Agenda in the staff report.

[3:12:04] The building was opened by Premier David Peterson. It was home to what is now known as the Middlesex London Health Unit, which remained in the building until March of 2020. The building is currently vacant. The downtown heritage conservation district plan ranks the property of 50 King Street as sea-ranked, non-heritage property with an institutional public realm landscape character. For more explanation on what these mean, I’d refer you to Appendix A, starting on page 709 of the Peck Agenda with Addeds. The existing property is low on the ranked scale due to its previous major renovations, dating after the critical period to the historic development of the downtown heritage conservation district.

[3:12:51] Demolition is discouraged as a final and irreversible act by the applicable policy framework of the provincial policy statement, the London Plan and the downtown heritage conservation district plan. The policies of section 4.6 of the downtown heritage conservation district plan state the demolition may be appropriate, quote, “occasionally redevelopment” that is in keeping with appropriate city policies pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Municipal Council may approve, approve with terms and conditions, or refuse the demolition request.

[3:13:29] Given the ranking and assignment of the property at 50 King Street by the downtown heritage conservation district plan, staff are recommending that the demolition be permitted with terms and conditions. Documentation through photographs and measure drawings is intended to create a permanent archival record of the building prior to its demolition. This is a consistent recommendation of demolitions within a heritage conservation district in accordance with policy 567 of the London Plan and can be used to assist in future commemorative activities. To ensure that adjacent cultural heritage resources are not adversely affected and sufficiently protected by any demolition activities, a demolition plan is required.

[3:14:11] There are sensitive archaeological resources, including burials within the courthouse block. Should an area identified as requiring further archaeological assessment be included within the work area for the demolition, further archaeological assessment shall be required. To manage the interim condition between the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the property, a landscape plan is required. The landscape plan will be required to ensure that the treatment is in a manner appropriate to its location and adjacency. A grass lawn is required and is anticipated to be accompanied by retention of trees north of the existing building, as well as the hoarding of this site.

[3:14:52] This site, hoarding needs to be appropriate to its location and adjacency and should celebrate the courthouse and the courthouse block in the redevelopment, excuse me, of the London area. Historic images of the courthouse block on the hoarding is suggested. As security is required to ensure the appropriate implementation of this landscape plan. There are two plaques still within the building, excuse me, commemorating the 1959 and 1986 openings. These are images 17 and 18 on pages 7/20 and 7/21 of the agenda.

[3:15:26] Those plaques need to be salvaged prior to the building’s demolition. Commemoration of the Middlesex Municipal Building and the courthouse block need to be addressed through future heritage impact assessment for the redevelopment. Heritage alteration permit approval is also required for future development. As future development is anticipated at this location, it brings an opportunity for compatible, sensitive and brilliantly designed to emblem of civic pride, befitting its location adjacent to the most historically significant place in London. I would just like to point out, as has been previous, that the latch was consulted on the demolition request at its meeting earlier this month.

[3:16:11] The latch did have a slightly different comment on the demolition with the addition to the staff recommendation, and I’m quoting from that report. It be further noted that this site is an important cultural heritage landscape and should continue to be part of an institutional and public realm landscape in the downtown heritage conservation district. From the notice that was circulated, I received four phone inquiries about the demolition request, as well as one written inquiry. If you’re happy to answer any questions, the committee may have. Thank you.

[3:16:46] Thank you, Mr. Ganyo. Any technical questions from committee members? I see none. I will go to the applicant. The applicant who’s not here. I would like to go to the public. Ellie McEating. Thank you.

[3:17:23] You can hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. The mandate of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario is to work to protect the best examples of Ontario’s architectural heritage and also to protect its places of natural beauty. And specific to London Region, that is what ACO London works towards. The building at 50 King Street, excuse me, is not, as Mr. Ganyo has said, it’s not an outstanding example of architecture of any era, even though it does have some important municipal and county significance.

[3:18:13] We’re expecting that both this committee and council will accept the staff’s recommendation to approve the demolition request. And we don’t object to that. But what we would like to state our support for is the staff’s recommendation to require an appropriate temporary landscape plan. The county courthouse is a beautiful building surrounded by grass, surrounded by trees. And that park-like setting would be detracted from if there was a parking lot or something put in place of that building.

[3:18:55] So hopefully that condition will be put on the demolition application. The other thing that the ACO would like to ask about is in the past city council has on occasion made an approved site plan for a replacement building a condition for the demolition. The, that’s probably not something that council would be interested in entertaining at this juncture given the uncertainty of the timeline of the property owners plans for that site.

[3:19:33] But just in general, I wanted to remind the park that that has been done in the past. And I thank you for listening to my comments. Thank you, Ms. McKeating. And is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak to this demolition request? I hear and see none. And with that, I’d like to go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Turner. And we are to vote.

[3:20:18] Mayor Holder, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. With that, I will go to committee members. I’d like to also acknowledge the word counselor, Councillor Fythnellar being here with us. And looking to the committee for the motion, comments, Councillor Lewis.

[3:21:02] Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation to approve the demolition permit. I’m also quite supportive of the idea of putting in some short-term landscaping features until we see progress move forward. So I’ll move the staff recommendation. And then once that’s on the floor, if there’s a seconder, I will offer a couple of more comments. Looking for a seconder, Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, and apologies in the last vote. I wasn’t able to vote, but sure, I’m happy to second this, but I would also remind colleagues that there’s already some commitment that if I’ve read this correctly, where, notwithstanding the concerns, which can be expressed have already been articulated, I think by the applicant that they’re willing to do so.

[3:21:55] But if we want to say it again, to reinforce it, then I absolutely support that. But in politics, we like to chew our food twice sometimes. And I’m very mindful that in this case here, I think the applicants committed to that, but I defer to staff if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. Mayor Holder, if I can ask the question, if you could be a little bit more specific to staff, was that a question to staff?

[3:22:28] Well, I guess specific, I’m seconding. And if that allows me, and I don’t want to preempt Councillor Lewis, who did indicate he wanted to speak, confirmation to staff that the applicant has already agreed to the terms of appropriate foliage and/or sodding or whatever it is that we have asked of them to this point. So we don’t have to belabor that, or perhaps we do, but I would really like to understand from staff, if that’s the understanding. Thank you, and through the chair, this is Kyle Gondio Heritage Planner.

[3:23:08] Staff will be working with the applicant to develop the landscape plan. I’ve understood that the landscape plan will be a combination of both a grassed area, retention of as many trees as possible, but is also anticipated to have hoarding. And it’s suggested that that hoarding is to protect the construction site be better than average. That’s befitting its location, and that’s where the historic images have been suggested to celebrate the history of the courthouse block as it’s awaiting its future development. Thanks, I’ll take that as a yes, I think.

[3:23:46] Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and as I indicated, it wasn’t trying to chew it twice. I was just commenting that that was part of the staff recommendation through you to Mayor Holder, but I do appreciate his caution about wanting to make things redundant. I did want to just offer a couple of comments on some of the public and latch commentary that we’ve heard around this property as well.

[3:24:19] In supporting this demolition permit, I want to be really clear that first of all, this building is, or this property is no longer in public hands as it once was. This is not going to be a public realm in the same way that it was in the past. And certainly it’s in the hands of a developer who has been very generous in the community in providing connectivity spaces and green spaces on and around their properties. And so I’m not suggesting that it’s going to be closed off to the public, but it is no longer a public property.

[3:24:58] And it is in the downtown core where we absolutely need intensification. And I would imagine that when the developer does bring forward an application, we’ll see some mixed usage there as is encouraged with some commercial ground floor and then residential spaces above. But I think, you know, it’s just important for me right now to share that I don’t expect the developer to come back with something that is, you know, an eight, 10 story sort of thing.

[3:25:34] I expect we’re going to see a very vibrant application, but I expect that it’s going to be very intense as well because that’s what we need to see in the downtown core. So I just think it’s important, people are mindful. Streetscapes change over time. Heritage Conservation District or not, that we have to have opportunities for new development to come in. And yes, it should be complimentary to other uses and other components of the downtown. But I look at the time that Mr. Ganyu laid out in his report to us.

[3:26:14] And I think of all of the changes that have happened to the downtown in the really couple of decades now since that building was originally built. There’s quite a number of new towers in the sky. There’s quite a number of new developments in and around the core area. So the one thing that I want to emphasize and as we move forward on this tonight is I’m not looking for demolition permit contingent on site plan. We will get a project that’s come forward. The developer may not need to do a whole lot of landscape planning if they bring forward an application sooner than later as is indicated in the report.

[3:26:53] This is contingent on redevelopment starting. So the sooner they get moving on that, perhaps we’re not going to do landscaping in December. The sod is done for the season. We wouldn’t see that till spring. So it may be we see something being built there sooner than later. But what I do know is that it’s going to be a great redevelopment for the downtown because we need to see that space brought alive in a way that it hasn’t been since it’s been vacated. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

[3:27:26] Any other comments from committee members? Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. It’s going to be weird to vote to demolish my old workplace. (laughing) That’s what I get to do. I think the application is appropriate. This site’s already been rezoned with bonusing. There’s a form locked in. I wouldn’t be surprised if the applicant at some point came forward with a revision. But I think it’s set for a 28 story building. So there’s really no surprises that development occurs in this site, it’s been fully contemplated and approved, and so what moves forward here?

[3:28:08] I think we’ll look for, actually, I think since it was done with bonusing, the form is locked in unless, of course, they revisit when we come up with something else or they come up with something else and ask us to do that change. Nonetheless, I think if it’s going to be a little bit of time before development occurs, it makes a lot of sense that as quickly as possible, the site is remediated in the interim and provides that interface between the forks of the dam.

[3:28:44] So it’s a pretty key site. I think the applicant knows what they have and they’ve certainly given a commitment to develop it as such. But yeah, anyway, at this point, there’s really no reason to decline the application for demolition. So it’s been long contemplated and this is just really a formality at this point. Thank you, Councillor Turner. I see no other committee members. Before I go to Councillor Lewis, I will go to the word Councillor, Mr. Feithmiller, or Councillor Feithmiller.

[3:29:30] Welcome. - Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, I wanna thank everybody from Pack tonight for letting me sit in here. It’s been enlightening, I think a couple things, and I think Councillor Turner used a good term. I think there’s no surprise that we’re here right now. We would have been expecting that we would be here. I think a couple of things with this site as it sits right now, talking to a lot of the constituents in the downtown and in and around that area.

[3:30:04] I think this building coming down right now, I’m gonna say we’ll take care of a few concerns, one of them being a safety aspect in and around that property, that property right now, sort of sits out of the mainstream of what is the downtown, and it can be a little bit of a magnet, probably for more nefarious activity in the downtown than we want to see. I fully support in item C, no addition to commercial or accessory parking in this area.

[3:30:41] There is parking there right now, which is, I’m gonna say, highly underutilized at this point in time. I think this building coming down probably will make that parking more user friendly, especially when you’re talking to some of the, some of the female business owners who are using the downtown, I think they find that parking a little bit, a little bit, I’m gonna say, off using right now. I think the other thing on timing, one of the things that we all get to see when we pass there on a regular basis, and I’m sure Councilor Turner saw this a lot, is there’s a lot of wedding activity that takes place in the summer months there.

[3:31:31] I think important that we get this done in the off months because I’m sure there’s a lot of events booked in there to take place in the warmer months as they come around. I was really happy to hear Mr. Ganyu’s comments on the hoarding and having the hoarding be respectful of the location that it represents. I think a lot of people walk past that area, and I think having hoarding that’s representative of the area and what the area means to London is very, very important.

[3:32:08] And I think the last piece, and Councilor Lewis spoke to this, this is where our city started. This is where we came from. We know we need intensification in our downtown core. I see no better area for it to bloom from than at the forks of our Thames. I think this is a great opportunity. I think it’s an opportunity for the downtown to really shine from that point.

[3:32:42] So I think there’s a lot of great things here. I am happy to see this come forward and I’m extremely happy to hear from my colleagues their support for this. So thank you. Thank you, always appreciate the Ward Councilor’s comments. I’ll go to Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say as a point of personal privilege, I’m kind of jealous of Councilor Turner. Now I’ve thought of a couple of former workplaces that I’d like to see demolition permits come in for too. Thank you for that, Mayor Holder.

[3:33:21] Well, thanks, Chair, right? You know, I’ve been thinking about the comments and I could be really clever with Councilor Lewis, but I shouldn’t be about this so as former employer spots. But let’s think a little bit about what Councilor Feifmiller referenced. And what strikes me about this is that what we may be establishing through this process, which I find interesting is the new heart of downtown. So typically it used to be, I suppose, Dundas and Richmond, which was that crossroads, but I’m wondering as we look to develop and we see the development potential along the river on the right-out west side, closest to the river, with more than one developer looking to put some pretty interesting properties there.

[3:34:17] We may well be seeing the new heart of London. I’m very curious to see how this development goes and I’ll be very interested to see what this developer and certainly one other that we have previously approved due to impact intensification of downtown while at the same time potentially creating a new heart. So very interested in what that looks like. So thank you for letting me add that extra comment and with deep respect to Councilor Lewis. I hope none of his prior employment places get torn down unless he really wants them to.

[3:34:55] Thanks. Thank you, Mayor Holder. And with that, I do not see any other comments from committee members and if the committee will allow me just a brief comment from the chair here with this demolition request. I am supporting it. And really, I think there’s a lot of history here. I recall when I came on to Council maybe seven years ago, there were applications to have it demolished. And we know that some form of intensity is going to happen here.

[3:35:28] How we balance that with the cultural landscape. I have confidence that the applicant will do that and really want to acknowledge the landscaping plan. I think that is really going to be important. And the preservation of the plaques as well. It’s funny when we talk about history and we refer to names that are very familiar to me. I can’t believe it’s part of history, but I think it’s really some great opportunities that can happen in this area. So with that, I see no further comments.

[3:36:02] We have a motion on the floor and we’ll open it up. Chair, it’s the mayor vote, yes. Close in the vote. The motion carries six to zero. And to a 4.3, I think we’re moving on to 4.3 and this is a request for a Council resolution. And we do have a request for delegation status.

[3:36:36] I assume Mr. Kirkness is here, he’s not. So I think we can proceed with the request for a Council resolution. Since there’s no need to get a request for delegation status, we can go right to the request that the applicant is seeking approval for a municipal Council to provide for the submission of the minor variance. And for committee members, we haven’t seen one for quite a while.

[3:37:09] We used to get quite a few of these, but it’s the committee of adjustments that we’ll be making the decision. We are just making the decision to refer it or not. So with that, I look for a motion for comments. Councillor Lewis. I’m just gonna move this, Madam Chair. I have no problem with this request. So we can move the referral to the committee of adjustment. And I’ll need a seconder and Councillor Layman and any further comments.

[3:37:45] Councillor Turner. I’m just trying to catch up on this one. Were there any specific concerns from staff? I see a report from Ms. Saunders about this, but from a planning perspective, is this contrary to anything that we wanted to remain seized with as a committee or a council? Through the chair, Mr. Barrett speaking. Quite honestly, we’ve not looked at this.

[3:38:20] This is merely a matter of whether or not Council would consider the minor variance to the application. In reading the report that was prepared by the clerks, it would appear that the applicant is proposing a different form of development. So the way I’m reading between the lines is that some of the provisions that are in there with respect to some of the regulations may no longer apply. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. And if I can bring committee members attention to Mr. Kirkness’s letter and he does note that there’s going to be no gas bar and they’re going to be increasing the retail service in this commercial space.

[3:39:10] So with that, it has greatly altered the site design upon which the adopted zoning amendment was based on. So there are changes to it. It’s really up to committee to refer this over or we’re not. And with that, thank you. There’s three Madam Chair Mr. Barrett and I think that’s helpful. If we don’t have an interest in this, then it’s probably appropriate to sit with committee of adjustment. Thank you. Any further comments?

[3:39:46] Just one moment please. Clerk will read the recommendation out loud. That the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1919-1929 Oxford Street West are a on the recommendation of the city clerk. The report dated December 13th, 2021, and entitled request for council resolution under section 45 bracket 1.4 bracket of the planning act, 1990 CP 13 dash 1919-1929 Oxford Street West.

[3:40:24] We received for information and part B, the request to accept a minor variance application relating to the property located at 1919-1929 Oxford Street West be approved. Thank you. And with that, Mayor Holder. Thanks very much. Frankly Chair, I’m not uncomfortable with that direction that council deal with this tonight. I mean, we’ve remembered the Indies gas bar, which is what is in the West end of the city.

[3:41:00] And that’s what we’re talking about effectively, what they’re talking about and seem to me was to remove the gas bar piece, which is why it’s come to us. And as you’ll note, for those in the West end, an SO gas station, which was the Indies gas bar brand at that time has gone kitty corner to that particular location set back in a little bit on the south side there of that corner. And so for them to be able to then deal with their property in the one next door, as we look through this, I have no hesitation going forward with this process.

[3:41:41] I’m not sure that I would have a seconder for that, but I’m not uncomfortable with directing this accordingly and having to deal with the council. I don’t think it does not feel like an unreasonable request to me. So we have a mover. I will go to— Point of order. Turner, Councilor Turner. I think that would be illegal. I think it would require public participation and notification in order to do that. So unless the mayor is suggesting that we don’t grant the ability to go to the committee to adjustment and then it comes back to PEC after notification.

[3:42:24] I would seek some legal opinion on that, whether we have to go into confidential session or not for that purpose, I can’t say, but I think that’s worthy of understanding clearly what we’re able to do or not able to do. And if that requires a legal counsel to give us an opinion on that, I would be directed accordingly. If I can get just some clarification, we are not making a decision here. We’re referring this over to the Committee of Adjustments to make the decision. If I’ve got that wrong, please.

[3:43:00] Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Barrett speaking. And certainly if you’re seeking some legal advice after, this is simply procedural. There were changes in the Planning Act that when a zoning application had been considered by council, you cannot make a change to that for two years and it requires a consent of council. So in this instance, there is a zoning that has been approved on the property. There were regulation matters associated with that zoning by-law.

[3:43:33] In reading what the request is in front of you, they’ve changed their development proposal so they would be seeking some relief on some of those regulations and that’s a matter that could be addressed to the Committee of Adjustment. They have not yet made an application because in fact, they need your permission to make that application. And that’s all that’s in front of you this evening. So there’s no action that council can take other than to either agree that they can make an application to the CFA or if you don’t agree with that, then somebody’s already noted. They would have to wait the two years because they can’t even come back and make a zoning by-law on an application on those same month.

[3:44:12] So that’s what’s in front of you this evening. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much. So if the issue then in front of us is giving this applicant permission to go to Committee of Adjustment, what I heard from Councillor Turner without ever putting words in his mouth was that this should be Committee of Adjustment issue, then I’m very comfortable if this is really the directions intended to go to let Committee of Adjustment deal with it, with our consideration that we would allow them to look at it as a result of the change of use.

[3:44:53] And if it’s a result of the change of use, which is again, the limiting in the gas bar component, why would we have an issue with Committee of Adjustment reviewing it ahead of the prescribed timeline? It just does not seem unreasonable to me. I guess through the chair, I think there was— I got that right, Mr. Barrett. Well, sort of, if I may, through the chair. Under the new rules that came in, once there’s a decision of council that’s been made with respect to a zoning by-law, that can’t be changed for two years.

[3:45:28] And so the council’s decision and so the, I believe the reasoning behind that was because very often it takes more than two years for property go through the process of development after it’s been zoned. But also, it was also that essentially they didn’t want decisions coming that were second-guessing decisions of council right away. What was offered in the legislation’s relief from that is exactly what’s in front of you this evening, which is the applicant can come to council and say, you can’t deal with this for two years. That’s what the law says.

[3:46:03] But I could with your permission go to the committee of adjustment to deal with some changes. And all I’m asking you, given that it was your decision and it’s not supposed to be changed for two years, are you okay with this going to another committee to look at this matter that could possibly change that? That I think in a nutshell is what’s here and that’s what’s intended. So they’re seeking your permission because it was your decision and your decision is supposed to stand for two years. And they’re saying we’re not withstanding that your decision is supposed to stand for two years.

[3:46:39] Are you okay with giving us permission to go to the committee of adjustment to deal with the development matter? And that’s what’s in front of you tonight. Mr. Mayor. Chair, that’s what I thought I said. But I thought Mr. Barrett said it much more eloquently, but I thought that’s exactly what I intended. If for any reason there’s any confusion, I’m prepared to focus it back to that point that would allow a committee of adjustment to review the council decision based on the change of use.

[3:47:14] And so with that, I’m in agreement with Mr. Barrett’s understanding and I would move that the applicant have the ability to go to committee of adjustment by virtue of the change of use consideration, which was not considered at the time by virtue of the circumstance at the time. And I think new circumstances should always allow a reconsideration if as and when it makes thoughtful sense. So if I may interrupt here, just so we can stay with the motion, if we can have the motion right out again, I’m feeling that the motion in front of us is clear that we are making the decision here to refer this to the committee of adjustments to determine what needs to be changed.

[3:48:14] And I want to make sure that’s clear, that that is the ability that we have that’s in front of us. If we are going to start making changes, I think we have to be really careful what’s being asked of us and then adding to that. And I want to again remind committee members that this has come to us because there is this decision or there is this change that is being made within the two years when the original application was approved and they need to make a change, but they need our consent to move it over to the committee of adjustments for them to deal with.

[3:49:07] And if I may go to the clerks, just to read the motion in front of us, do we have a mover and a seconder on it? Okay, one more time with the what’s in front of us. That the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 19-19-R-A. On the recommendation of the City Clerk, the report dated December 13th, 2021, and entitled request for council resolution under section 45 bracket 1.4 bracket of the Planning Act, 1990, CPA 13, 19-19-1929, Oxford Street West, be received for information, and part B, the request to accept a minor variance application relating to the property located at 19-19-1929, Oxford Street West be approved.

[3:50:05] We’ve got a mover and a seconder, and with that, we can vote. Chair, I’ll say yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Moving on, next up is the deferred matters list. We can receive this, any comments, any members? 20, the motion, looking for a motion.

[3:50:50] Councillor Lewis and Councillor Lehman. Councillor Turner. I wasn’t on committee at the point when this came, so my memory is a little foggy. But the Q4 2022 identification for the bird friendly stuff is that the timeline that had been identified when it had been brought forward to committee in the last session. Sure it was, but I guess you’re looking for staff to confirm that.

[3:51:35] If that’s what it was, I’m satisfied. It seems like a long time, but I recognize it’s the most recent thing to be put on the deferred matters list, but it seemed like something that had been brought up well earlier as for it to be put towards the back of the list despite it having been brought up earlier than had been formally passed in the last session of PEC. That’s all I’m looking for. But if 2022 Q4 is the earliest that it can happen, I can appreciate that. Thank you, and just to add to that, I know the council did approve the information going to the advisory groups to, I think, EPAC and AWAC for comments as well.

[3:52:20] So there could be that process. But with that, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, just to perhaps assist a little bit for Councillor Turner there. This was some direction that was provided after Mr. Samuels made his presentation to PEC last month. So that’s where this particular item arose from. And as I wasn’t on planning prior to that year, I’m not sure if there was something earlier, but that’s where this one came from. Thank you, Councillor Turner.

[3:52:57] Yeah, three, Madam Chair, thank you. Yeah, that’s the most recent iteration was that, but it’s been brought forward along before that, so that’s why we’re seeking the clarification. But I appreciate that context, thank you. Thank you. With that, can we go to vote? Thank you. We’re moving on to the next item. I just wanna make sure, ‘cause we did some flip-flopping around here.

[3:53:32] We’re in potential 6.1. And I wonder if I can go to the clerk for what we’re gonna go in confidential for? Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee is going into closed session to consider a report in a meeting close to the public as the subject matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to solicit a client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the corporation.

[3:54:08] The subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the corporation. Thank you. And with that, I’m looking for a mover and a seconder to go on camera. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero.

[3:54:49] Thank you. Make some changes.