January 31, 2022, 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. Lewis and S. Lehman present and all other members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2022-01-20 EEPAC Report Full

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 20, 2022:

a)  the Working Group report relating to the property located at 4519 Colonel Talbot Road  BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2, inclusive, 3.1, 4.2 and 5.1 to 5.5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   3425 Grand Oak Crossing (H-9414)

2022-01-31 PEC SR 3425 Grand Oak Crossing H-9414

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2219008 Ontario Limited (York Developments), relating to the property located at 3425 Grand Oak Crossing, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-100h-198*R6-5(43)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision Zone (R6-5(43)).   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Housekeeping Amendment to Secondary Plans (O-9346)

2022-01-31 PEC SR Housekeeping Amendment to Secondary Plans O-9346

2022-01-31 Public Comments 3.1

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to housekeeping amendments to approved Secondary Plans:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Old Victoria Hospital Lands Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

d) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan;

e) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to AMEND the Beaufort/Irwin/Gunn/Saunby (BIGS) Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, to DELETE references to the 1989 Official Plan and to ADD references to The London Plan; and,

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with an in-depth review of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to consider the potential for broader changes;

it being noted that changes to the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan will be addressed through Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment (OZ-9328);

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication dated January 28, 2022, from L. Logan, Vice-President, Operations and Finance, Western University, with respect to this matter;

it being further pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with these matters, the individual indicated on the attached public participation meeting record made an oral submission regarding these matters;

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

  •    the purpose and effect of the recommended action is to update Secondary Plans to reflect the transition from the 1989 Official Plan to The London Plan. The recommended action will assist in the interpretation and implementation of the Secondary Plans in conjunction with The London Plan and to improve clarity and consistency of policies and maps in the Plans.   (2022-D08)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   3207 Woodhull Road (O-9429/Z-9430)

2022-01-31 PEC SR 3207 Woodhull Road O-9429 Z-9430 - Including Corrected By-law

2022-01-31 Public Comments 3.2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Karen and Eric Auzins, relating to the property located at 3207 Woodhull Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend The London Plan to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Farmland Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types, and to change the identification and delineation of natural heritage features on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Potential Environmentally Significant Area TO an Environmentally Significant Area on Map 5 – Natural Heritage;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject lands proposed to be severed FROM a Holding Open Space (h-2OS4) Zone, an Agricultural (AG2) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO an Open Space Special Provision (OS5()) Zone, and to change the zoning of the lands proposed to be retained FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone, a Holding Open Space (h-2OS4) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO an Agricultural Special Provision (AG2()) Zone, a Holding Agricultural Special Provision (h-AG2(_)) Zone, an Open Space Special Provision (OS5(**) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) 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 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, Farmland and Green Space Place Types, and Natural Heritage Features and Hazards; and,

  •    the recommended changes to Maps 1 and 5 of The London Plan support the conservation and protection of environmentally significant features and functions over the long-term.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   755-785 Wonderland Road South (O-9409/Z-9410)

2022-01-31 PEC SR 755-785 Wonderland Rd South O-9409-Z-9410

2022-01-31 Public Comments 3.3

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the applications by The Corporation of the City of London and McCorr Management (East) Inc., relating to the property located at 755-785 Wonderland Road South:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend the 1989 Official Plan by ADDING a policy to section 10.1.3 – Policies for Specific Areas;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 31, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 15, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(2)) Zone TO a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision (RSA2(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a 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 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 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the criteria for Specific Area Policies and Planning Impact Analysis;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new use that is appropriate within the surrounding context ; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would repurpose existing vacant and underutilized building stock and would provide convenient access to services for dog owners in the urban area of the city, thereby reducing the length and number of vehicle trips.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   345 Sylvan Street (SPA21-112)

2022-01-31 PEC SR 345 Sylvan SPA21-112

2022-01-31 Public Comments 3.4

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by the Housing Development Corporation, London, relating to the property located at 345 Sylvan Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a 42-unit apartment building:

i)    lighting;

ii)    board on board wooden fence instead of the proposed chain link fence;

iii)    loss of privacy;

iv)    evergreen trees instead of the proposed deciduous trees and requesting maintenance of existing trees on the lot; and,

v)    movement through the lot with quick ingress and egress; and,

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council advised of the following issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application:

i)    a six foot board on board wooden fence with one foot of lattice on top instead of the proposed chain link fence; and,

ii)    fir trees and requesting maintenance of existing trees on the lot; 

 

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

  •    a communication dated January 14, 2022 from J. Lanys, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 16, 2022 from K. Busche, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 16, 2022 from L. Gosnell, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 17, 2022 from A. Sworik, by e-mail;

  •    a communication dated January 19, 2022 from D. Gosnell; and,

        -    the staff presentation;

 

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

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

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

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is in conformity with the policies of the Low Density Residential designation of the Official Plan (1989) and will implement an appropriate form of residential intensification for the site;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Site Plan Control By-law.  (2022-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. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Secondary Plan for Meadowlilly Road Area

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the communication dated January 4, 2022, from J. Crockett, President, Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association, with respect to the request for a Secondary Plan for the Meadowlily Road Area BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the communication BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for review and for consideration in the development of Special Area Policies for Meadowlily Road South and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Failed (3 to 3)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:25 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 (2 hours, 31 minutes)

those members attending for the public participation meeting. Could you please remain muted when you are muted by staff? Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the third meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for Council standing or advisory committee meetings and information upon request to make a request for any city service. Please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca. Okay, welcome, committee members.

I think we’re all here. The mayor is not with us at the moment, just for your information. And with that, I would like to go to first of all, disclosures of pec@london.ca. I’d like to move on to consent.

We have two consent items. We have the 2.1, the second report from the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, as well as 2.2, the lifting of holding provisions for three, four, two, five grand oke crossing. Any committee members that would like consent items pulled? Councillor Turner.

I was just going to move them both. Okay, I’ve got a mover. I’m looking for a secondary Councillor Lewis. Any comments from committee members?

Say none. And with that, we can vote. I just did. I voted.

Yes. With sincere apologies, can committee members please let me know how they voted? I voted yay, but on the screen, I actually have two voting in progress bars in progress right now. And so do I.

So Councillor Hill here votes yay, Councillor Turner votes yay, Councillor Lewis. Yay. Councillor Layman. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Two scheduled items. Our first scheduled item is 3.1, the public participation meeting regarding housekeeping amendments to secondary plans. I’m looking for a mover to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Layman.

I’ll try voting this time on screen. Here without the benefit of e-scrab, I will vote yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, for being here. We have a full committee. Perfect. And nice people as well.

Three. Councillor Hill here. Just to let staff know, now I have three voting in progress bars at the top of my screen. Thank you.

I think we all do as well. So I will, until we get our technology fixed without voting, I will go around the screen here. First, Councillor Turner, are we going to be voting? Opening up the PPM.

Councillor Hill here. Councillor Mayor. Yes. Councillor Lewis.

Yes. Councillor Layman. And I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

And with that, I would like to go to staff. I know there’s maybe a brief verbal on behalf of Joanne Lee, a planner. It’s just an admin here for verbal on the secondary plans. Yes, I’m here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would like to recognize Joanne Lee, who is a planner in long range planning and research, who prepared the report for this meeting. So this is a second or a housekeeping amendment to secondary plans for the City of London. Now, secondary plans form part of an official plan, and they provide more detailed or alternate policies that apply to a specific part of the city.

A number of London secondary plans are prepared before the London plan was approved, and therefore include references to the 1989 official plan. Now that we’re in a position where the majority of the London plan policies are in force, a housekeeping amendment is required to update those references to reflect the city’s new official plan. So the housekeeping amendments that we have today are intended to first update the references to reflect the London plan, but also correct any errors or emissions that were identified through the review of these secondary plans. These amendments do not change in any significant way the impact of these secondary plans or the types of development that may be permitted through them.

So housekeeping amendments are recommended to a number of secondary plans that include the McCormick Secondary Plan, Old Victoria Hospital Land Secondary Plan, Riverbend South Secondary Plan, Oldies Village, Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan, and the Bigs Neighborhood Secondary Plan. Secondary plans not included are the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, which is subject to a separate ongoing review, which will also include housekeeping changes, as well as the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, which is recommended for further more in-depth review. So the recommendation with regard to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan is a result of some of our findings as we’re going through it, where we identified some inconsistencies with the direction as compared to the London plan. It’s expected that this more in-depth review will be initiated upon the completion of all London plan hearing phases, which is currently scheduled for September 22.

And with that, I’m happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Adema. And with that, I will go to committee members for technical questions only.

I see none. I will go to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the housekeeping amendment to secondary plans? Yes.

Greg Thompson. You’re Thompson. Can you hear us? Yes, I can.

Can you hear me as well? Yes. If you could state your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. Okay.

Thank you very much. Yes. Good afternoon, Chair and Mr. Mayor and Councillors.

My name is Greg Thompson. I’m Director of Finance for Miami Developments during London. We do have an interest in land that is in the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. I’d like to thank staff Justin Adema and Joanne Lee, who spoke with me recently regarding this.

And we just simply want to say that we fully support the city staff’s recommendation for an in-depth review of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. And that is a property owner there. We look to fully participate in that review. And that is all.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for being here with us. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this recommendation?

I see none. I will ask one more time. There’s anyone here that would like to make comments on the recommendation that’s being presented here at planning this evening on amendments to secondary plans. With that, I see no further comments.

I would like to go to committee to close the PPM, looking for a mover, Councillor Hillyer, seconded by Councillor Turner. I think we may go to the screen to see if the vote can go through. It looks like we’ll do manually and I’ll go to Councillor Turner, posing the PPM. Yes.

Councillor Hillyer. Yes. Mayor. Yes.

Councillor Lewis. Yes. Councillor Layman. Yes.

And I vote ye. Posing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. And with that, I would like to just remind the committee we did receive some correspondence on this as well, just for your attention.

And looking for comments, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you, just with respect to the correspondence we received from the University of Western Ontario. I didn’t see anything that would flag any concerns associated with impacts on the university, but I’m not sure staff might have some comments as to the commentary that’s contained within. I note that the letter doesn’t have too much in the way of specifics.

It just is looking for assurances that their general concerns that their interests aren’t impinged in any way. Sorry, through the chair, I would concur the letter from Western identifies that they’re hoping to maintain the current policy approach that the big secondary plan includes and that’s the intent of this review is to not make any substantial changes to policies in terms of their impact, only update the references to reflect the London plan. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you. I appreciate that.

It’s thorough. It must have taken a lot of work to kind of match old and new and do all the red line revisions. So it’s helpful and it’s nice to see us moving towards a fuller implementation of the London plan. Thank you, Councillor Turner.

Looking for other comments, I see none. I wonder if members will allow me to make a comment from the chair as well. I know I appreciate staff’s comments around the Southwest area. Secondary plan is not in front of us at the moment.

There’s more work to be done, but that will be coming to us. I know it is a big conversation out in the southwest part of the city and I really appreciate staff’s comments that we will be having a thorough review on on swap at a later date. I do have a question regarding the river bend secondary plan. I understand as well that it is, I think it’s almost completed in terms of development, but my question is more around opportunities to make sure there’s land available there for school.

I think it’s important just to consider that as we make changes to the secondary plan for river bend. If I could go to staff through the chair. So that kind of review is certainly outside of the scope of what we’re doing right now as part of this amendment in terms of what the changes currently recommended for river bend say it is just limited to changes that are of a housekeeping nature and we did a rest to limit it to that so that it wouldn’t take away from other projects that are happening or maybe happening. If there were to be a review of river bend more broadly looking at things like school sites, that could be completed, but as a part of a separate review.

Thank you. I just want to confirmation on that and appreciate the response. I would like to go to committee for a mover on the secondary plan amendments. There’s five of them that we’re making, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hellier.

Shall we try voting on the screen? No, not at this time. So what I will do is go around the table. Councillor Turner.

Yes. Councillor Hellier. Yes. The mayor.

Yes. Councillor Lewis. Yay. Councillor Layman.

Yes. And I vote yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero.

Just one moment. I wonder, members, if you would just allow me to ask if we can have a five-minute recess until we reset the technology here to be able to vote on screen. So I’m looking for a five-minute recess. Councillor Lewis, Councillor Turner, it is 4.18.

We should be back in five minutes. Thank you. Councillor Hillier. Would they like us to offer in this period so they can reset?

So we should exit, ascribe all of us then, and come back in five. Thank you for asking that question. Councillor Turner. Just to vote on that, I’m sure.

Yeah. Can we do a vote? Councillor for recess? Councillor Turner.

Yes. Councillor Hillier. Yes. The mayor.

Yes. Councillor Lewis. Yay. Councillor Layman.

Yes. And I vote yes. And we will be back in five. Thank you.

Welcome back, everyone. And I would ask committee members to go into ascribe. We will not be voting, but you should be able to pick up your agendas. We will be doing verbal votes only until we’re able to fix the problem, but you should be able to pick up your agenda.

With that, I would like to proceed, if committee members are ready, and we’ll move on now to the second public participation meeting, which is a zoning amendment at 3207 Wood Hall. We do have a verbal update from staff. This is a request to rezone the subject property to facilitate a severance of woodlot to the Thames help a trust for conservation. I am looking for, to open up the PPM, Councillor Turner, seconded by the mayor, and I will go around and ask for a manual vote.

Councillor Turner. Yes. Councillor Hillier. Yes.

The mayor. Yes. Councillor Lewis. Yes.

Councillor Layman. Yes. And I vote yay. Closing the vote.

The motion carries six to zero. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. I would like to go to staff for a click-through vote on this zoning amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is Barb Debert of planning implementation. This is an application for a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate the severance of the westerly portion of the property for conveyance to the Thames Talbot Land Trust for woodlot, conservation, and management purposes. City staff also initiated an official plan amendment to update the appropriate maps in the London plan to reflect a green space place type and to identify an environmentally significant area for the lands proposed to be severed. These changes provide clarity that the ecological features and functions on these lands are to be protected over the long term.

The concurrent application for consent was conditionally approved by the Committee of Adjustment on January 13, 2022. Among others, the conditions of consent require compliance with the zoning by-law, the transfer of the lands to the Thames Talbot Land Trust, and the finalization of the proposed easement within Middlesex Center to provide legal access to the severed parcel. The recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the policies of the London plan with respect to the utilization of land trusts to rehabilitate and conserve natural heritage areas. It also balances ecological interests with the long-term protection of viable farmland, retaining most of the lands currently used for cash cropping within the agricultural lands to be retained.

The recommended amendment also minimizes potential land use conflicts between agricultural and open space uses by removing passive recreational uses, including hiking trails and multi-use pathways as a permitted use in the open space zone, and by using increased building setbacks and holding provisions to prevent potential impacts of any new farm buildings or other development on the open space area. Staff are satisfied that the recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and is conformity with the London plan and appropriate for the site. Thank you and staff are available to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms.

Deiber. Any technical questions from committee members? Councilor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair.

This is an interesting application, so looking forward to seeing those. My question is just with respect to the minimum distance separation, Ms. Deiber, to do a good job of explaining the process here. In 2.6, the policy context paragraph starting with guideline number 43.

It states if deemed appropriate by a municipality, the process by which the reduction to an MDS, one may be considered, could include a minor variance in specific zoning bylaw amendment or an OPA. So it looks like that we have the ability to grant leave to the MDS. I’d always been under the impression that these were provincial rules and that they weren’t really in the jurisdiction for us to amend. But this is something that is within our hands to be able to grant leave on that.

Ms. Deiber. Yes, through the chair, yes, this is what we consider to be a unique circumstance where the application of the policy allowing us to grant leave to the MDS policies would be completely appropriate. Great, thanks.

That’s all I have. Thank you. Any other technical questions from committee members? I see none.

I do have a technical question from the chair if the committee members will allow me. And that that is around the right of way. Just I understand from the report, it’s 18 meters. Is that what it is now or is that standard?

I want to make a little bit more information on the right of way that’s being dedicated. Yes, Madam chair, that is essentially the width of easement that currently exists on the site. There are a number of existing easements and rights of weight on the property. In this particular case, one is simply being extended a little bit further west in a slightly new configuration to provide access across lands in Middlesex Center to the woodlot parcel that’s being created.

So the width is consistent with what is currently existing for the existing easements in the area. Thank you. I see no other technical questions. I will go to the applicant if the applicants are here.

Yes, we are here. Wonderful. Please state your names and your address if you wish and you have up to five minutes. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Karen Ozzens and I live at 3207 Woodhall Road. I’d like to thank you for giving me this opportunity. The Thames to Albert Land Trust TTLT’s mission is to protect, conserve, and restore nature.

And by doing so, contributing to a stable climate, human well-being, and healthy habitats for all species. Daria Kacinski, executive director of Thames to Albert Land Trust, is an attendance and would be happy to explain any questions you may have about the land trust. If you look at the map of the property, you will see that over half of it consists of wetlands and woodlands. We have left this area undisturbed and let mother nature look after it, and she has done a very good job by keeping an ecosystem intact and providing a secure habitat to the plants and animals that live there, many of which are species at risk.

We are now making this application for severance, so we can donate this land to TTLT so that the trust can make it possible from other nature to continue her job and perpetuity. A founding member of the trust, Mary Kerr stated, “A land trust is really a promise made to future generations. The completion of this severance will make it possible for us to donate to these lands to TTLT and it will help fulfill that promise. It will also help contribute to the City of London’s Climate Emergency Action Plan and to Canada’s promise of protecting 30% of the wild places by 2030.

I would like to thank everyone who has worked with us and will continue to work with us to complete the necessary steps. To finalize this requested severance. Thank you very much for giving me that opportunity, and I’m sure Daria can answer questions if there are any of those for land trust.” Thank you, Mrs. Ozzens for being here, and I will go to committee members since we do have a representative here from the TTLT for any technical questions that they may have.

Dean Nunn, Mr. Mayor, technical question, no? Yes, I do, Chair. To the folks from the TTLT land trust, how does this very thoughtful donation of land?

How does that mesh with the longer term plan of the TTLT trust lands? Is this piece segregated from, or is this congruent to other space? Thank you very much for the question. So the TTLT land trust has a land securement strategy that we work on, and so every parcel is prioritized for securement.

So these lands, there is two concurrent services. So one is in Middlesex Centre, right adjacent to the City of London parcels. So both of them are being severed and donated to TTLT land trust. So the final nature reserve will consist of both of those parcels, but the Dingman Creek corridor is one of the priority areas the TTLT land trust is focusing on, because it is an important wildlife corridor, and it has very high biodiversity.

So it is one of our focal strategic areas for securement. And through you, Chair, thank you for that. And through you, Chair, the fact that we’re crossing two municipal regions there, does that add any level of complication, or is that what we’re basically serving out in part through this process tonight? I’m not sure if that’s to be fair to the TTLT land trust or to staff, I’m not sure, actually.

So it is a technical question. I wonder if staff would be more appropriate to answer that question. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, we’ve been in discussions with the Ozzens for about four years now on this proposal.

And from the beginning, when we started going out and looking at the site, we were coordinating with staff within Middlesex Center. So we have been in communication with them throughout the process to ensure that what is happening on both halves of the municipal boundary is well coordinated. So back through you, Chair, to staff, and Middlesex Center, no issues there that is going as expected as well, to your knowledge? Yes, it is as far as I know, sorry, through the chair, as far as I know, the TTLT land trust intends to finalize the approved severance in Middlesex Center very shortly.

And there is a need for them to create that easement within the Middlesex Center lands prior to the completion of the severance within the City of London. We wanted to make sure that that easement would be available before we created what in essence is a landlocked parcel. So if Chair, through you again, if I can ask staff, I’m going to presume Middlesex Center will be pleased to oblige. But if there’s any complication there, what impact would that have on this particular application that we are looking at tonight?

We don’t have any expectation that there will be an issue. Middlesex Center approved the consent conditionally for the other half of the lands in 2021. And the applicants, as I understand it, are currently in the process of meeting all of Middlesex Center’s conditions for consent. And as far as I know, everything is going very smoothly with that.

Thanks. That’s very helpful to understand that with the other municipality. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

I will now go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation. Please come forward with your comments. I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward.

I see none. Therefore, I will ask to close the public participation meeting looking for a mover in the mayor. Seconded by Councillor Turner. Councillor Turner.

We’re doing a verbal. Councillor Hillier. The mayor. Yes.

Councillor Lewis. Yeah. Councillor Layman. Yes.

And I vote yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries 6-0. With that, I’d like to go to the committee for a recommendation, comments.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thanks very much. You know, these kinds of donations come up infrequently.

So, this gives me an opportunity to say to Karen and Eric Ozzens. Thank you. I think that this is a very generous and significant donation to the Thames Talbot Land Trust. But also, I think for what we are trying to do as a community as well.

So, I’d like to give a huge shout out to them and thank them for their kindness and their tremendous generosity. Thank you. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’d like to echo the mayor’s comments on that. The end to the Thames Talbot Land Trust. You play in a really important role in our community, especially with the preservation of Caroline Forests and our ecosystems and environmentally significant lands that exist in private holdings. The development pressures that we’ll see to the west of the city will start, especially in the southwest.

We’ll be starting within the next decade. That gifting of lands to the land trust helps to reduce some of those pressures on our sensitive ecosystems. So, thank you for that. It’s nice to be involved in one of these.

I think now, what, in seven years on council, this is the first one that’s come across. Well, I’ve been here. So, it’s nice to be involved with that. So, thank you.

Thank you. And, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s certainly the first one I’ve seen in the three years I’ve been here.

So, I’ll just say, I agree with what the mayor and Councillor Turner both said. I think we still need to move in second the staff recommendation. So, I’m prepared to move that recommendation. Sorry about that.

Since we have a mover, I’d like to proceed with Councillor Lewis moving in and Councillor Turner. And if I see no other comments, I would like to make a comment from the chair. This is in my ward, and I want to thank the Ozzens for this generous opportunity that they’re giving our city for future generations. It is something that we do not see very often here.

Like Councillor Turner, the past seven years, this is probably the first time we’ve seen this. I know we have had donations in the past to the Talbot Land Trust Fund, but it is very much appreciated and just want to give my thanks again. So, without we do have a motion on the floor, I will go around the table. Councillor Turner.

Yes. Councillor Hill here. Yes. Mr.

Mayor. Happily. Yes. Councillor Lewis.

Yes. Councillor Layman. And I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

And moving right along, hopefully our timing is good to proceed with the next public participation meeting, which is 755-78-85 Wonderland Road South. This is a zoning amendment to allow a kennel at West Mount Mall. I am looking to open up a public participation meeting in Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Layman. And with that, I will go around the table.

Councillor Turner. Yes. Councillor Hill here. Yes.

Mr. Mayor. Yes. Councillor Lewis.

Yes. Councillor Layman. Yes. And I vote yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, I will go to staff. There is a presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is Olia speaking here, and I just want to confirm that everybody can hear me. We can. Okay, great. Thank you, Madam Chair again.

And through you, good afternoon committee members, staff and members of the public. As mentioned, my name is Olia Algis of planning implementation, and I will be speaking to item 3.3 of this afternoon’s agenda regarding the property at 755-785 Wonderland Road South. So if we can turn to slide one on page 219 of the agenda, and I will begin my presentation. The applicant, Macore Management East Incorporated is requesting to rezone the subject site to a new regional shopping area.

Special provision RSA 2 zone to add kennel as an additional permitted use. Additionally, the corporation of the city of London is requesting to amend the 1989 official plan to add a chapter 10 specific area of policy to permit service uses to align with the London plan. I’ll be going through the slides that were provided as part of this afternoon’s pet agenda. So if we can turn our attention to slide number 2 on page 220 of the agenda, which displays an aerial image of the subject site, meaningfully known as 755-785 Wonderland Road South.

The subject site is located in the northwest corner of the Wonderland Road and South and Viscount Road, otherwise also known as West Mount Mall, an existing two story and closed shopping center. A range of existing current uses include retail, office, gym and movie theater. Throughout time, the mall has experienced a number of vacancies as the retail market change and former retail tenants relocated to other commercial areas. Approximately 37% of the mall is currently vacant.

The surrounding land uses include to the north a place of worship and low density residential, to the east low density residential, to the south institutional, and to the west commercial and high density residential. Moving forward to slide number 3 on page 221 of your agenda, I will be speaking to the details of the proposal. The kennel use proposed to occupy approximately 450 square meters of vacant space within the existing shopping center. No development or site alteration is proposed, aside from the modifications to the building facade and construction of a small outdoor area to be used as a pickup and drop off base.

If we can now turn our attention to slide number 4 on page 222, we’ll see a site plan outlining where the proposed dog kennel, otherwise known as dogtopia, will be located within West Mount Mall. The range of services that would be provided include daycare, overnight boarding and spa grooming services. The services would be strictly provided for dogs and only currently do not extend to cats or other household animals. At full capacity, the kennel would accommodate 72 dogs spread over three rooms.

However, it is important to note that locations in the greater Toronto area average approximately 25 to 35 dogs daily, which is approximately 50 percent capacity. Overnight boarding would accommodate up to eight dogs at a maximum, a noise control plan and waste management plan were submitted as part of the complete zoning by-law amendment application to address issues related to noise and animal waste. If we can flip to slide number 5 now on page 223, where I will speak to the overview of the policy of the subject site. So within the London plan, the subject site is within the shopping area place type where the proposed kennel is contemplated as service use.

Within the 1989 official plan, the designation is Community Commercial Node and the primary permitted uses do not contemplate a kennel. Within the regional shopping area, RSA2 special provision to the zone does not permit the proposed use of a kennel, which brings me to the next slide. So if we can flip over to page 224, the summary of the request. So the owner is requesting to reason the subject site to a new regional shopping area special provision, zone to add kennel as an additional permitted use.

The cooperation of the City of London is requesting to amend the 1989 official plan to add a chapter 10 specific area of policy to permit service uses. So moving forward to slide number 7 on page 225, I’d like to speak to key issues and considerations. The recommended amendment is in keeping with the Provincial Policy Statement of 2020 as it facilitates the introduction of a new use that is suitable within the existing site context. The kennel would be located within the existing building and efficiently using existing infrastructure and uses.

It contributes to an appropriate range of mix of uses to meet long-term needs and supports opportunities for economic development. It also provides a use or a service that may otherwise be inaccessible to residents within the urban area of the city, thereby reducing the length and number of vehicle trips. Also within the London plan, the proposed kennel use is contemplated in the shopping area place type as a service use. If we can now turn our attention to slide number 8 on page 228, which speaks to proposed operations and animal welfare.

So there was a noise control plan and waste management plan that was submitted and staff is satisfied that strategies will mitigate the impacts associated with noise and waste. There was also concerns that were raised by members of the public regarding animal welfare, such as appropriateness of a kennel within an urbanized area with the majority of operations within an indoor setting. Staff is satisfied that the proposed playrooms offer ample opportunity for exercise and socialization for the dogs, who otherwise may be alone indoors and at home during the day. If we can turn our attention now to slide 9 on page 227 regarding dog licensing and control bylaws.

So upon application for a dog kennel, the London Animal Care Center does require the following. We would need proof, she would need proof of zoning approval, proof that the applicant is Canadian kennel bug registered and proof that the applicant is incorporated under the Animal Petrics League Act. And lastly, slide 10 on page 228, our recommendation. Staff is recommending approval as the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and conforms to the enforced policies of the London Plan and the 1989 Official Plan.

The recommended amendment would provide community access to services for dog owners in the urban area of the city, thereby reducing the length and the number of vehicle trips. That is the end of my presentation and I welcome any questions that might be directed to staff. Thank you. Thank you.

Technical questions. Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for the report.

A couple of times through the report, it’s mentioned that waste management plan and noise control plan have been submitted to staff and that they’re satisfied. I’m just curious, most specifically, about the details of the noise management plan. There’s residential properties just to the south, sorry, to the north of the property here. And I’d imagine there’d probably be a fair amount of echo.

So one, what the plan is specifically, or at least some broad strokes of it, and two, what recourse residents who might have concerns about those noises, should those become problematic for them? Thank you for the question. And through Madam Chair, if I can actually get the applicant agent, Casey, who is present here today from Zilinka Priam, to respond to that concerning question. Councillor Turner, we can go to that now, or we can wait until the applicant makes the presentation.

I’m sure which way. I’m happy if they included in the discussion, but if I don’t, we don’t get the right answer, then I might come back to staff. One follow-up question, if I might, is what level of consultation existed with the animal welfare advisory committee? They can go to staff on the consultation with the animal advisory committee.

Thank you. And through the chair, I may defer that to my manager, Heather McKinley. Thank you for the question. That is something that I’d have to take a look at the file.

I’m not directly involved with the day-to-day and the planner that was on the files on maternity leave. So if I may, take a few minutes, and if we can proceed with other questions, and then take a look. Thank you, Miss McNally. We can proceed with other questions.

These are technical questions, Councillor Turner. Those are my questions. Thank you. Okay, so we’ve got a number of answers to come to us.

Any other technical questions from committee members of staff? I see none. I do have a technical question. If committee will allow me from the chair, and this is around the HVAC, the air exchange.

Any studies done or any concerns with the ventilation in this area? This is a question to staff. Thank you. Madam Chair, it’s Greg Gartsby.

Probably well, Miss McNally is trying to find the answer on the other question. I’ll take a quick cut at that one. We did not go to any explicit or specific HVAC concerns. I’m not too sure what might be in the waste management plan, but the HVAC issues would be addressed through the property owner.

I could give you examples of there are lots of uses within close shopping centers that emit odors. Some of them, people like some of them don’t, but this is not something that, as related to the zoning, that we actually went to an examination of the HVAC system. Thank you for that information. I would like to now proceed to the applicant if the applicant is here.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of planning committee, Mayor, members of staff, and members of the public. My name is Casey Kochicki. I’m a senior planner with Slender Pream Limited, representing McCour Management and Dog Topia on this proposed zoning by-law amendment. I just want to extend a thank you to Oleia and Katherine, who are the planners handling this file.

We’ve had a chance to review the staff report in its recommendation, and we are an agreement with its recommendation here tonight, to go back to Councillor Turner’s questions with regards to the noise mitigation measures. I’ll lead off first by saying, as part of this proposal, there’s no outdoor space as part of this proposal. It’s an interior facility. There is a small outdoor space that is used for drop-off and pickup of the customers, the dogs, if you will, but the actual playrooms are all internal.

With regards to the noise mitigation measures, Dog Topia increases insulation and wall widths and depths between itself and its adjacent tenants to ensure that noise mitigation is kept down to acceptable levels, if at all, heard from outside. There’s also no vision glass from the outside into the play spaces, again, just to avoid the noise from spilling out into any sort of public area to avoid those impacts. And then with regards to the HVAC system, Dog Topia, as part of their day operations, do install a upgraded HVAC filter system into their unit to filter out the dander and smells associated with high active dog activities. So these types of uses, Dog Topia specifically, have successfully opened locations in other shopping centers in downtown Kitchener, as well as the GTA to much success around the mitigation measures that they use.

I will note that I am joined tonight by Erica Ness and Michael Weitzer of Dog Topia, who can also assist in answering any operational questions that plenty committee members may have or members of the public may have. I think I’ll leave it at that. And if there are any additional questions, myself, Erica and Michael are on hand to address them. Thank you.

And are there any technical questions of the applicant from committee members? Seeing none, I will now go. I’m sorry to write a question. I apologize.

Mr. Mayor, we’re looking for technical questions of the applicant. Yes. Thank you.

As it relates to the shops that they have in place in other communities, has there been any concern expressed about voters and the like that that have been brought forward? Through you, Madam Chair, I will look to Erica or Michael to address some of the other Dog Topia locations. So I’m happy to answer that. We have 17 locations across Canada, several in the GTA, and have had no complaints.

We install considerable HVAC units, about one ton per 250 square feet of footage. And we exchange the air about every 11 minutes. So we’re constantly keeping the rooms fresh. Thank you.

And through you, Chair, the question as it relates to odor management in your 17 shops across the country, have there been any complaints registered as a result of that? No, so we have a very robust cleaning protocol where through environment, we friendly and pet friendly enzyme cleaning fluids. We actually break down any bacterias and odor-causing agents in the facilities several times a day. And finally, through you, Chair, as it relates to noise factors within the kennels, any concerns expressed by shoppers, consumers, residents with respect to noise of your tenants?

Yes, our customers, our customers of the dogs. We actually are insulated well. The building is typically a concrete structure to start with. We then soundproof the walls.

And so to date, we have had no complaints of noise. We do get some barking on the way in and on the way out, but no different than dogs walking on the sidewalk in a neighbourhood. And perhaps, Chair, I apologize, one final question. And I had read the report with respect to resident concerns with regard to mobility.

You’ll know that that kennels on the periphery of our city will often have external space for the dogs to run outside fresh air and the like. Have any of your customers’ owners had any concerns with respect to that that they’ve expressed? It’s a debate. We do get some customers that ask about outdoor space.

Our model currently in the majority of cases, particularly in Ontario, where the weather is not always conducive to dogs playing outside, is all indoor space. We do have some in the US in southern claims that have outdoor space. Thank you for that. I appreciate that from the owners.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other technical questions from committee members? Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. And I’ll just follow up a bit on that one. Again, you know, it’s the unknown unknowns that concern me here, everything. My concerns have been pretty much answered with the question so far.

But this is a zoning question, so I guess, in light of, you know, there is obviously consideration at some point in the future, perhaps an outdoor space. If this zoning, rezoning was approved, could they add an outdoor space without coming back to the city for another zoning amendment? And this is technical questions for the applicant. Question is, can outdoors?

Sure. Yes. I would say it’s more for staff. Yeah, I would like to know just, okay, I’ll go to staff on this one then.

Technical question, staff regarding outdoor space opportunities for outdoor exercising. I’ll take the question, Madam Chair, it’s how to make nearly speaking. It wouldn’t require any more zoning change. It’s part of the function of the commercial use.

It’s accessory to that use. And at this point, we wouldn’t determine that rezoning for the rezoning would be needed. Councillor Layman. Thank you.

So I just want to make sure I’ve got straight. At this time, we’re improving this without, you know, we’re concerned about noise, odor, etc. It’s all based on being mitigated by being inside. If this was approved, the owners and the mall could change their minds and open to outdoor space, which in my opinion, would kind of change the dynamics in terms of the numbers.

Thank you, Madam. Yes. Through you, Madam Chair, there is a small outdoor area is already identified and it’s internal to the, we’ll say, the existing structure. So it’s mitigated from that perspective.

As the owner mentioned that there would, there may be some that in as they enter the building and exit the building, but in terms of expanded area, just like any noise, it would be mitigated by the building itself. If we treat it like, whether it’s a broad noise, any other stationary noise under the noise bylaws. Councillor Layman. Okay, moving on then to the public.

Madam Chair, I could answer that other technical question that I made for Councillor Turner. There was no direct notice to the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Having said that, there was no real trigger to circulate to them as this would more than likely, in our opinion, fall under like a pet smart, for example, and that would trigger a separate notice to the advisory committee. Hey, thank you for that information and I’ll move on now to the public.

Councillor Van Meerbergen is here that we are at a public participation meeting at the moment. We’ve just heard from staff technical questions. We’ve also heard from the applicant technical questions. I would like to proceed to the public.

There will be an opportunity once we close the public participation meeting to go back to you and speak to the recommendation and ask for the questions of staff. That’s usually the process that we take care of. I currently have a, what I think is a technical question, would this not be the right time? If you could hold on to…

Councillor interjecting. Yeah, okay, I can hold. That question, I’d like to hear from the public first and then we’ll close the PPM and we’ll go from there. Thank you.

I’d like to now go to the public. AdWords Levensky, if you could please unmute. Are you able to unmute? I’ll ask one more time.

This is the chair asking. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Yes, thank you.

Please proceed. I just want to let you know that if you can give your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes, please proceed and welcome. Good afternoon. My name’s Edwards Levensky.

I love it 743 Woodcrest Boulevard, which is at the west end of the mall. First of all, I would like to say good afternoon Madam Chair and to the Mayor and Councillors. My concern is with a dog cattle, the ones that are in use or in the city at present are at the exterior locations of the city. We don’t have anything in the center.

Secondly, the air circulation, I realize they’re going to have an excellent air circulation. But as we all know, COVID is spread by airborne and I’m wondering how that will affect even just the exterior of the building with people coming and going, as well as the Super King, how the interreaction between the air exchange and the animals. Other than that, you’ve all been very good and you’ve answered all my other questions and I thank you for being there and I appreciate what you are doing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Levensky. Is there anyone else here from the public that would like to make a comment on this recommendation? I’ll ask one more time.

If there’s anyone here that would like to make a comment, please come forward. I see and hear none. And with that, I would like to ask to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis and I’ll go around the table for verbal, Councillor Turner, Councillor Hillier.

Yes. From there. Yes. Councillor Lewis.

Yes. Councillor Layman. Yeah. And I vote a closing the vote.

The motion carries six to zero. Thank you. And before I go to the ward, Councillor, Councillor Van Nierberg, and I would like to just follow up with one of the questions that was asked by the public regarding the air circulation and the proximity to the supermarket and any concerns of the air circulation being close to the supermarket. I’ll go to staff for that question.

I’ll attempt to answer the question chair. Just not too sure exactly how you’re looking for us to respond to that. The HVAC system would be something managed by the mall itself. And as with any user within, whether it’s restaurants or other retail uses within the building, perhaps some guidance would be helpful to hear.

Thank you. I wonder if I can go to the applicant then to. Certainly, through you, Madam Chair, I’ll hand it off to Erica from Dontopia who has some input on that question. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Mr.

Mayor and the Councillors. In regards to the HVAC system, it’s one of the biggest selling features for being a franchisee with the Popeia. They use sterile air. You probably heard about this since the start of COVID as that’s what’s used to actually kill the bacteria as it goes through the air system.

So we’re actually installing it’s over 3,600 CFM unit along with the sterile air and the UBC lights, which as I think Michael mentioned earlier, regenerates between 11 to 20 minutes on a cycle. And that’s what kills all the viruses and anything that’s airborne, as well as inactivates anything that could be contagious. With the actual unit, we’ve been working with Macore to seal the whole entire area. We are actually doing all of the exterior walls, both along the mall hallway, which is the one that’s adjacent to the super king along the backside, which is the newer tenants on the other side.

And then there’s a hallway, which is receiving. So technically, the two hallways wouldn’t actually have to be enveloped. We have chosen to actually envelope the whole entire unit to keep it secure, which should not only help with noise, but also help with the sanitization within the unit. Thank you, Miss Ness.

And I will now go to the word counselor. Counselor Van Mierbergen, you did have a technical question. Thank you for waiting. Yes, thank you, Chair.

It’s been referred to in passing about the number of locations, the extent of this organization. I was wondering if we could because it also was touched on that it’s present in the United States as well, Dogtopia. I thought I read on the website that there are 180 locations across North America for Dogtopia. Could I get that confirmed or corrected?

I will confirm it’s about that number. Give or take one or two units. Okay, thank you very much. So clearly, this is an organization that knows what it’s doing, to have a size of this magnitude across North America.

Madam Chair, I’m just wondering if this is the time when I could give comment or should I wait? If I’d like to go to the mayor and committee members and then I can always go back to you. Sure, that’s fine. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I’ve heard comments from the consultant equally from the representatives from Dogtopia.

I think this is an exceptional and a novel business model. Therefore, on that basis, I know we will have discussion, but I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation at this zoning provision. Okay, so we have a motion to move. The mayor, I guess we’ll need a seconder and Councillor Lewis.

And if we can continue the conversation with comments, I don’t see any from committee members. So I will go to Councillor Van Mierbergen. Councillor Van Mierbergen, welcome. Thank you, Chair.

Just wanted to make sure I was unmuted. Yes, thanks again. So I would like to ask my colleagues on the planning committee to support this recommendation. This is important to London.

It’s important certainly to South West London and certainly to the Westmount community. Westmount Mall is a center. It’s in the veritable part of Westmount. And it’s an economic generator that is so important to South West London.

And bit by bit, it’s reinventing itself. And I have to give a lot of credit to the management team that looks after Westmount and is repurposing this mall. It’s on the path to a real renaissance. And this dawgtopia addition to the mall is a big step in that direction and the direction into that renaissance.

And again, it’s very important for our area of the city and certainly South West London. So again, I’d ask for your support for this. Thank you, Councillor Van Mierbergen. Any other comments from committee members?

Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. I agree. I think the use opportunities here are innovative and this is a little bit unlike the request that was associated with the office space because there’s a conflict with that inherent in our office space policies and some of the key strategies that we have in terms of trying to consolidate office space and commercial office space in the core.

In this circumstance, it’s underutilized space. It doesn’t have conflict with our policies and makes a lot of sense. I had the two concerns. One is the one of this not having a lot of outdoor space for the dogs, one of the code of practice for the Canadian Kennel operations, one of its points, any primary dog enclosure has the ability to get outside.

So it provides distinct activity area large enough to allow dogs to exercise, socialize, play freely with other dogs and allowing access to outdoor when weather permits. So this doesn’t have that part but this is really a list of about 20 items. So it’s one checkbox in the thing. The reason I asked about the animal welfare advisory committee is one that this is I would argue something in their wheelhouse and something that we have the advisory committee for.

This is I would debate the parallel to a pet smart or a dog grooming place, mostly because of the residential nature of this no longer term residency of the dogs at the location. So that being said, I just kind of illustrate the point more than anything else. And if there are similar ones, I think it would be appropriate for such a referral to the committee to make use of the advisory committees when we have those opportunities. But otherwise, I’m quite happy to support the recommendation and I’m intrigued to see it move forward.

Thank you, Councillor Turner. Any other comments? Councillor Layman. Thank you.

Yeah, you know, I had some questions about impact on neighbors in the eventuality of, you know, outdoor space added. But I’m listening to the award Councillor and I don’t see any neighbors, you know, showing up and expressing concerns here. I agree with what’s been mentioned before Westbound Mall as well as other retail establishments are going to have to repurpose Westbound Mall’s been doing that for a long time. So I think an opportunity to get that commercial space used up for sure with the service that’s obviously needed.

You know, looking at this seems to be a professionally run organizations with many locations across North America. And I did look at their website and listened carefully to the answers which are answered really well in my opinion. So I have faith that this will be a professionally run animal care unit. So based on that, I will support this.

Thank you, Councillor Layman. Do you know other comments from committee members? If I may, just make a few comments from the chair and I quite agree with the award Councillor, the need to develop Westbound Mall. We see many changes and it’s in empty and the challenges to get it occupied.

This is an opportunity. It’s a business opportunity that’s being presented. I do still have reservations though and I’m supportive of the recommendations that policies allow and support something like this moving forward. But it just seems to me there’s a lot of unanswered questions.

Maybe it’s because it’s new to our city, this type of a business going into a mall. But I do have concerns as we do approve this, the process moving forward and opportunities to open it up outdoors. This is the smallest, it’s right in the middle of a residential area and I do have those concerns. But generally speaking, supporting the application moving forward.

Thank you. With that, we do have a mover and a seconder and I’ll go around the table. Councillor Turner, Councillor Hillier, the mayor, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Layman, and I vote gate. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries 6-0. A moving along to the next public participation meeting. This is at 345 Sylvan Street. I am looking to have the PPM opened.

Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll go around the table. Councillor Turner, to open up the PPM. Councillor Hillier.

Yes. Mr. Mayor. Yes.

Councillor Lewis. Yes. Councillor Layman. Yes.

And I vote yay. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries 6-0. There is a staff presentation on this one and I’d like to go to staff please.

Evening committee. This is life, Maitland. I’m a site development planner with the planning and development department here at the city. This presentation or this report available on page 229 of your agenda.

The presentation is on page 249. It’s regarding 345 Sylvan Street. It’s file number SPA 21-1-1-12. And it’s an application by the Housing Development Corporation of London for a three-story apartment building with 42 units.

This is the implementation phase of a previous application. The application being made at the end of 2020 and being heard in March of last year where we approved an official plan and zoning file amendment to allow for this use. That application was appealed and the appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Land Tribunal in November. In terms of the site plan in front of you, it’s a relatively simple and straightforward one.

I would like to just kind of finish off my remarks by addressing three of the site plan issues that were brought up both by the commenter who commented in advance the deadline and the subsequent letters that are on the agenda tonight. So there’s three basic issues that were raised. The first lighting, the second kind of fencing and privacy, if you will, and the third being trees. With regards to lighting, a photometric plan was provided with the application.

It was reviewed. In those, we look for two things. One is light trespass onto neighboring properties and the other is the fixture type to ensure that light is being directed down for bird friendly among other reasons. In the instance of this one, there was some slight trespass along the south property limit and we’re anticipating a second submission that addresses that by the applicant.

The second and third issues we had a meeting with the applicant last week to discuss these. With regards to fencing, the applicant indicated that the chain link fence that they proposed or was shown at first submission along the entirety of the property is a first cut, if you will, a first draft, and they would be welcome to feedback from the committee if there was in terms of what other fencing would be required. They’re anticipating a further review and a second submission that may not match the chain link fence for the entirety of the property. The third set of comments, we were around trees with regards to privacy.

I would note this site plan has a very significant amount of retained trees. It’s well in excess of 90% of the trees that are on site with only non-native and dead trees being proposed for removal. One additional note is that along the east side, the trees that are currently on site were not shown on the plans. The applicant in our conversation with them last week indicated that they’re not intending to remove any of those trees.

So the entirety of those trees that are not shown on the plans will be shown on subsequent plans and are intended to be retained. So I’m aware the applicant and some of their professionals are available as well for comments. And with that, I’ll finish my comments on this file. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Maitlin. Any technical questions? See none.

I will go to the applicant if the applicant is here. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It’s Harry Frucio from Zalenka, preamble. I’m here this afternoon on behalf of the Housing Development Corporation.

And we also have other members of our consultant team available to answer any technical questions. Sally Wang from the XP and Martha Berkman’s from Ron Cautais Landscape Architects. I just want to thank staff and Mr. Maitlin for his presentation this afternoon for processing the application and also for speaking to the comments that were made by members of the public.

We agree, obviously, with the presentation and what’s being brought forward this afternoon. Madam Chair, I have nothing else to add and we’re certainly able to answer any questions that the committee may have of us. Thank you. Thank you.

Any technical questions of the applicant? See none. I would like to go now to the public if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation. We do have a person in committee room one and two.

I’d like to go to committee room one and two. If you could come forward, please, to the microphone. Yes, please come forward stating your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. Welcome.

Nailing down for you. Yep, we can see you. Bye. Mr.

Mayor, my name is Bruce Swark. I’m representing my son who’s a resident at 286 High Street and his wife and their young family. Two concerns and these are directed to Mr. Maitlin.

I believe that there had been some contact with Alexander Swark with you. They’re a home that they purchased just last year at 286 High Street, which is a heritage home built in 1880. I believe it was. City has lots of concerns with the property of being a heritage home, which has always been followed throughout its ownership.

And they are actually only the third owner of this house in the last 160 years. Very concerned about keeping the visuals up the home. But now the backyard, which they thought was a park, is now going to be a three story 42 unit residence. And their biggest concern is concerns are this.

They have a brand new six month old baby and there is an in-ground pool in the backyard that pretty well goes right to the fence line that abuts the development site. They would like to see not a chain link fence because it does not offer privacy as far as visual privacy, nor sound privacy from 82 units next door, which could easily be 80 people. Not too sure how many people would be living there. But their suggestion is that they would like to see something much more substantial to protect the visual and sound barrier, maybe a wood or concrete or whatever type of fencing would be best to deliver that to Beth.

Another concern that they have are the landscaping and the trees that are in that area or to be placed in that area. I think the landscape plan had for deciduous trees. They don’t take that as very appropriate being that they have a very young child, a female, six months old, and an attractive life. That’s about 30.

They would like to see something much more substantial there to offer this privacy from third floor residents or rate where their property backs into there is proposed a garden area. Our suggestions are in speaking with some landscapers is to go to a nevergreen type of tree at a minimum of an eight foot height. And then eventually in the next few years that height would be increasing and they would like to see those placed on the subject sites development just because their backyard is, well, the pool is quite close to the fence and they really don’t have a lot of space to have any trees planted in addition to what they already have with their backyard. So they’re suggesting it would be nice to see a green wall of ever greens there for everybody’s betterment.

And that would offer some form of a 12 month greenery and help in the privacy situation as they continue to grow over the years from visual and sound impairments from their backyard. City’s always very careful on heritage homes and this home has been maintained and here to all of the principals that the city has put out in protecting these properties. And they would just like to see that continuing into the backyard of this heritage home that has had, you know, when they walked into it, they thought it was a park. And sure enough, they don’t know it wasn’t a park and the circumstances in real estate today, there isn’t enough time to check and verify things when you see a property.

Unfortunately, you have to put an offer and that’s what happened in their situation. Regardless, that’s the opinion of the owners of that 286 High Street, which you need to leave back on to us for. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to this recommendation? I see none. Last one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation. With that, I am looking to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Turner, and I’ll go around the table. Councillor Turner to close the PPM. Councillor Hillier. Yes.

Mr. Mayor. Yes. Councillor Lewis.

Yes. Councillor Layman. Yes. And I vote yes.

Closing the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Thank you. And I just want to remind everyone here that this is these comments that we’ve heard here from the public will be going to, staff will be taking these comments and moving them forward through the site plan process.

It’s really important to understand we’re just looking for comments at this time. The zoning already has been approved on this site. So with that, I’d like to go to the word Councillor and Councillor Turner. Thanks Madam Chair.

Thanks to staff. Thanks to the community for your submissions and for your input into this. If you might recall, a while back, we had the zoning meeting for the site. And there was this significant public interest in this in this file.

And so we added to the H5 holding provision, which allowed for public participation meeting on the site plan. So that’s what we’re talking about tonight is taking a look at the site. I think there’s a number of really very positive pieces in here. I think the community garden is a really interesting piece to add to the humanity space.

The retention of trees is great to see as well. We don’t typically see that level of retention. I think one of the things that helps with that is that it’s previously developed site. So the footprint of the building doesn’t take up a lot of space where there would have been trees previously.

The main concerns, there’s a number of concerns and I’m not going to be able to address them all. But kind of the key concerns are things that we can address likely through site plan. One of them is privacy and the second is site maintenance and third is the mobility through the site itself. There is a fair amount of movement and trust pass across the site connecting basically the lot from Sylvan getting up to baseline, hopping offense, heading over towards Wellington.

And I think that’s one of the things that the residents and the neighbors in the area are concerned about is that movement that allows for kind of quick ingress, egress and kind of being able to do that a bit more covertly. The seconds that we’ve heard is a question of the trees and the way they’ve been maintained and how that impacts the adjacent properties. So knowing that those dead and dying trees are being removed, that’s helpful. My question will be around what kind of maintenance is being done to help prune or trim those trees and doing good agriculture so that they don’t negatively impact the neighboring properties.

And the third comes down to the fencing. And the question of the privacy that can be accommodated with fencing. I was a little bit of surprised to see the minimum requirement on the chain link fence. And Mr.

Maitland’s presentation talked about the receptiveness of the applicant to have a bit more of a robust fencing. In previous applications, we’ve talked about board on board fence and to address some of those privacy concerns. Perhaps through you, Madam Chair, if I might ask Mr. Maitland, one about the fencing, two about the trees and three about the pathway to be able to to address those impacts that we’ve heard through presentations and through the letters we’ve received.

Thank you, Mr. Maitland. Three questions there. The path for sure.

Yeah, sure. First off, with regards to the pathway and cut through, I think kind of the nature of that site is currently it’s a vacant site and it’s very much functioning as a vacant site. So ultimately, the build out in the development of the site, having people living there will certainly help to address a number of those issues quite significantly. Just just the nature of a vacant site versus a site that people are living in.

The second question with regards to the fencing, the board on board fence is generally our standard. Sometimes it doesn’t make sense to have a board on board fence provided by the applicant if there is already one on the adjacent property. But we can look to having a board on board for the for the entirety, whether it is the applicants providing it or the existing board on board by other property owners adjacent. And that’s that’s what we’ll look for.

And the applicant indicated in our conversation with them last week, that was the approach they were intending on taking. With regards to the maintenance of trees, in association with the site plan application, what we would do is we would look to have dead trees removed prior to anyone entering for safety. So those are the first things that we would address. Otherwise, maintenance, it is just general tree protection.

My law stuff that I’m not an expert into. If the counselor has something more specific that may perhaps I missed in this, I would I’d welcome a second question followed. But that’s if that’s necessary. Councilor Turner, the maintenance question.

Yeah, no, thank you. The two for clarification, the site itself in the street has some connection into Percy Street. And I think Mr. Mainland’s correct that once it’s developed out, that might mitigate it, except it’s multi-use building or a multi-residential building.

So it’s not as it wouldn’t be as as inhibiting as if we’re a single family residential, because it’s just that much more difficult to kind of figure out that people will feel a little more free to traverse between those. But I think the board on board fence, as long as it’s secure, and there aren’t gaps in the enclosure, would help to address that to that movement. I think that’s mostly what the neighbors are looking for, just to make sure that there’s not to access into to the adjacent parking lots of the multi-residential buildings next door. In terms of the trees, it’s just a question of ensuring that as part of the site conditioning that any of the dead or damaged branches that are falling off into the neighboring properties are addressed as they prep the site for development and on an ongoing basis.

So those would be just the concerns, just making sure that they’re in good maintained form and that they were a good neighbor to the residents within the neighborhood. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Chair. Through you, I just first want to comment on Mr. Swork’s presentation. I was quite doomed by the concerns he raised, and I think they’re genuine.

And since this will be resolved at site plan, I’d like to support the board on board, the wooden fencing, which provides, I think, safety and security privacy. And so my question to staff is this, and I should know what the maximum height of a of a fence is allowed to be. I thought it was five feet, could be six. First thing, can you just clarify what that is, please?

Through the chair, a six foot fence is the standard requirement that we ask for. And so what I’m wondering is, well, in addition, is there something along the lines of, you know, that we’ll do this sometimes in in properties where an extra foot with lattice on top of whatever the height is, is that is that something that’s in the world of the possible? I know that that isn’t what it does is it adds another obviously another foot of wooden space. But I think whether it’s someone looking to leap a wall or a fence in a single bound is not going to happen, but still, would there be some consideration site plan to that if neighbors are requesting that perhaps an extra foot of lattice fence could be put in as well?

I don’t know if that’s aesthetic, or whether it’s something that we dealt with at site plan, but I just wonder if you could comment on that. Yes, through the chair, we do have a room within the fence bottle to go to 2.1 meters for the fence. But that being said, at the specific location of the Swarx house, they have currently just one moment. If I can interrupt just because it’s hard to hear.

I wonder if someone can mute, take themselves off mute. Thank you. And sorry, Mr. Maitlin, please proceed.

We’re talking about the fence. In Mr. Swarx, I presume the junior, his letter to us, he requested conifers. And those when we plant them, the standard conifer height is 2.5 meters.

So that’s another option considering there already is a board on board fence at that location, albeit on the Swarx side of the property line. Just something for committee’s consideration. Well, I’m going to encourage chair through you that the highest possible wood fencing board on board be put in place with no gaps as council turners indicated, that just makes a world of sense to me. And then the other suggestion that I heard Mr.

Swarx make was a call to see of fir trees lining as well to provide as they grow some additional protection. Wonder, would the two be in parallel be consistent, that is the higher wood fencing and then the wall of fir trees? It is through the chair. It is something that we could request.

My only kind of immediate concern as a site planner or my thought is around the duplication of two wood fences, just considering there already is a first wood fence there. But it is within the realms of possibility and something we could implement through site plan. Thank you very much and through chair, I know that our folks will do this in consultation with the neighborhood. The thing that I didn’t hear raised, but I saw it in the file had to do with lighting and the concern that the lighting that is going to be utilized for the premise while it provides security and I think it is great.

There is some express concern about light shining into people’s backyards or, I will say, living spaces. I wonder if staff might comment on that. Remedies for lighting, Mr. Maitland?

Yeah, again, through the chair. So as part of site plan, and we have received a first submission for site plan at this point, we do take in a photometric plan. And so that will provide two things. One, the fixtures which show the nature of the lights and one of the requirements there is that the lights are covered so that they shine downwards and basically illuminate the ground, but not the sky or the neighbors.

So the applicant has achieved that. The second thing we look at is kind of the way those lights spread on the ground. And there is one area of concern based on the photometrics plan that they provided for submission. It is along the south property line where there is a bit more than we usually accept for trespass.

And that’s just right at the entrance of the driveway. So that’s the one area where there was some concern, but it’s with the applicant at this point to address that comment from staff. Chair, finally, I’d like to say thank you to staff for the willingness to work with the neighborhood community. It’s a great community in Old South.

And as past president of the Old South Community Organization, I can tell you, neighbors take their properties very, very seriously. And I’ll support this and thank staff for their cooperation and also Mr. Swart for that presentation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any other comments from committee members? We see none.

And with that, oh, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to planning. Yes.

And I appreciate the Mayor’s very thoroughly addressing the resident’s issues. My question, and I’m sorry if I missed it, the units, is this similar to the Thompson Road development that’s all bachelor or studio apartments, or is this a mix of bedrooms? Go to staff on this one. This is the three-story 42 units of affordable housing.

The question is, is it similar? It is also, sorry, through the chair, this is also an HDC affordable housing project. There is, I understand, sorry, I’ll let HDC speak to the exact units and the approach that they’re looking through for the site. I understand it is slightly different from 403 Thompson, but it is similar in that they’re both HDC applications.

Is there anyone here from HDC? Madam Chair, there isn’t anyone available to speak from HDC, but I’m just going by the proposal that it is for one bedroom units with a minimum of 41 square meters on floor air, which was dealt with through the zoning application. So, as Mr. Maitland said, it is very similar to the Thompson Road application.

Mr. Vanholst or a Councillor Vanholst, sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. That answered my question.

Okay. And with that, we do have a motion and a seconder, and I’d like to go around the table supporting the recommendation. Councillor Turner. Madam Chair, I take one of the challenges in not being in the electronic world here as we don’t know what the motion is.

So, these, yep, I’d be happy to. Madam Chair, it just specifically was anything added to the motion with respect to the recommendations on the site plan. So, I think we heard a discussion about the board on board fence and plantings were possible, and light mitigation. Were there other things?

Are those included in the motion? They are included in the motion. I have not seen it because I’m not on e-scribe either, but I’m getting a lot of nodding from the clerk here. So, it is included, and if that is satisfactory, or would you prefer, Councillor, if we received an email of the motion, would that be helpful?

I’m satisfied. We’ve recorded it here for posterity. I just wanted to make sure that what those recommendations that we were moving forward were because we weren’t able to see them. Mr.

Maitland has his hand up too, so perhaps before we do go to that, you might be able to want some clarity. Yes, Mr. Maitland. Yes, thanks to the Chair.

With regards to Councillor Vanholz’s comment about the nature of the units, the proposals for 41 bedrooms and two two bedrooms, and I’d like to thank HDC and City Housing staff for sending me an email to clear that up right on, right on cue. Thank you. I wonder before we do the vote, if I could go to the clerk just to give clarity to what we are adding to the motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is an approval authority recommendation, so all of the concerns that were raised at the public participation meeting are included in the Council recommendation. Thank you for that. So, the recommendation stands that this information will be taken back and used through the site plan process. And with that, I’d like to see if we can go around the table, Councillor Turner, supporting the recommendation.

Councillor Hellier. Yes. Mr. Mayor.

Yes. Councillor Lewis. Yes. Councillor Layman.

Yes. And I vote yay. Closing the vote, the motion carries. 6-0.

Thank you. And moving on now to number four, which items are for direction, 4.1 is the secondary plan for Meadowlily Road area. And this is current respondents that we have received from Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association. Sorry about that.

There is a request in the correspondence. I don’t know if committee members will allow me. I can’t go to staff to get staff’s comment on the correspondence. I see some nodding.

So, if I could just go to staff for their comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s Greg Grant speaking. I’m just trying to actually pull up the agenda there as well.

So, I’ve got the comments in front of me. With respect to the request that we undertake a secondary plan, this matter has, I think, been raised numerous times as we’ve been going through the planning process within this area and as the applications have been coming forward to you. In the communication, they note that a lot of work is being done and has been done. I believe that what precipitated this latest letter was the notice that an environmental assessment is currently underway to determine the appropriate means and the best means for providing for municipal infrastructure within these areas.

Some of the things that are pointed out in this speak to protecting and sustaining natural heritage areas and civic infrastructure plan. Well, in fact, the plan for protecting and sustaining natural areas as they’ve noted has just been done through the completion and the adoption of the Conservation Master Plan. The civic infrastructure plan is underway. The plan for the land use mix, development form development intensity, plan mobility network and some of those other matters that are spoken to in the request.

In fact, we’re addressed through the land and plan process when these lands were actually put into the neighborhood place type. In the 1989 official plan, these lands were all left in urban reserve, which meant that the long-term intent for the development of the lands had not been established. There was a number of years ago, almost 10 or more years ago, an application that was brought forward on lands, fronting on Commissioners Road and Meadow Lily for some intensive commercial development. And that was an advance of any of these lands being designated for any use other than urban reserve.

And it was that application that precipitated the starting of the secondary plan for those for that area. And through that secondary plan, numerous land use alternatives were being brought forward, all of which looked at how you would integrate the residential development of the lands with potential commercial development along the Commissioners Road frontage. That plan was shelved or that secondary plan process was shelved when the application for that commercial development was withdrawn. After that time, then we started the land and plan process.

And through the land and plan process, we in fact took those lands out of urban reserve and put them in the neighborhood place type. The neighborhood place type would give you essentially the land use range of land use permissions that would exist within those lands. And as well as the committee council are aware, the land use or the land and plan also, particularly in the neighborhood’s place type, speaks to the level of intensity that would be provided within the neighborhood’s place type based on the road classification that exists. And so, Meadow Lily wrote itself, I believe as a neighborhood street, which provides for a relatively low level of intensification up to townhouse forms of development, the Commissioners Road frontage as an urban thoroughfare or an urban quarter provides for higher levels of intensity where there could be forms of mixed use or commercial development.

And this would be consistent with how you would look at what would the appropriate range of land use be in any neighborhood place type adjacent to any of these road types. Quite honestly, there is perhaps one outstanding issue that’s not been fully addressed through all the work that’s been done within the area. And that would be a very, very focused understanding as to whether or not Meadow Lily wrote itself would be or should be deserving of specific or special policies that would speak to the development along Meadow Lily Road, given its historic and rural character. The historic and cultural elements of the area have been identified and are protected both through designation of the Meadow Lily bridge and the park farm property.

And then the park farm property itself as part of the Meadow Lily Woods environmentally significant area conservation master plan has a essentially a zone a management zone around the farm parcel itself that speaks to the cultural significance of that parcel. So the the culturally significant features within the area are identified and protected through various designations and policies. But really the the one piece that that I would have to agree is perhaps not been spoken to explicitly would be Meadow Lily Road south itself. And what special policies may be appropriate to consider along there and what what character there would be for the street and the development immediately adjacent to the street.

I think that that’s sort of a broad overview. And then I guess there is just one other concern. And this can perhaps be spoken to by staff who are also present from legal services. But I would identify that these the this organization is an appellant to an act of appeal that exists on lands within these areas.

So we certainly would not be suggesting or recommending that councils start undertaking any work at the at this time that’s coming forward as a request from an appellant on a council decision. Thank you, Mr. Barrett and for the public who are watching the request is from the Friends of Meadow Lily Woods Community Association to initiate a city led secondary plan. I will go to Councillor Hillier.

Thank you very much. I was quite vocal about this before and I will temper it down a lot this time. I do consider this a very special area. And I think it’s one of those little areas that got that slept with the cracks.

And I would like to move motion three on East Drive to request initiate a city led secondary plan for all lands within the study area of mentally road environmentalist assessment and servicing study. That’s option three on East Drive. I’m not on East Square, but the the motion is you’re putting forward a motion. Councillor Hillier.

Yes. It is to move forward with a secondary plan. Councilor. Civic administration be requested to initiate a city led secondary plan for all lands within the study area for the mentally roads environmentally assessment.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. And just just for my own information when it comes to process, this is a letter that we’ve received and I would like to just confirm that the process that usually we undertake when we receive communication, I always assume there’s usually a delegation request that goes along with the correspondence so that there’s that opportunity. I know where we’ve got a motion on the floor, but I did want to make sure committee members realize there is a process that we can receive, receive, take no action or ask for a delegation. So I just want to put that out there.

Comments from committee members? Councillor Lewis. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And tonight, I don’t want to dispute a process with you. I don’t think that a delegation is something that is actually necessarily part of the process, but that’s certainly in the future I would expect that they might want to make delegation status. But you know what, the reason I’m seconding this is we’ve already seen some challenges in this area as Councillor Hillier alluded to and I’m not going to reiterate that decision. It’s been made, but we did hear very clearly from Mr.

Barrett that there is a peace missing and given the development pressures that this area has been seeing, to me it’s an if not now when and is that when going to be too late? Yes, there’s an organization that has an appeal going in on a council decision and that’s fine. The LPAT will pursue that. Oh, they’re not LPAT.

Yeah, they are LPAT. Almost started to refer to them as the OMB again. They will, you know, render a decision on that as they see fit. But to me, the fact that there is a peace missing that we’ve just heard from our director of planning that there’s a peace missing as long as that peace is missing, more applications can come forward, more tough decisions about do we use the neighborhood place type or do we use the secondary plan?

We’ll come forward because of the development pressures we’re seeing. And when we’re talking about an area like Medullally Road South and the environmentally significant area around it, once those lands are gone, they’re gone forever. Once you lose an environmentally significant area or you start to see it slowly eroded by the land uses around it, you don’t get that space back. So I am absolutely in favor of initiating a secondary plan for this area.

I think we heard there very clearly there’s a peace missing and what the secondary plan process will do is let the discussion around what that piece should look like to fill in the future planning for this area is what we will get out of that. So thank you to Councillor Hill here for bringing this forward and it’ll have my full support. Councillor Turner. I think his worship has his hand up before me.

Oh, I’m sorry I did not see that. Mr. Mayor? Yeah, thanks very much.

I’d like to come back to Mr. Mayor. Sounds like he was not recommending that we proceed with any of the suggestions that came in that I’ll say thoughtfully worded letter as a result of the case in front of all that now. Mr.

Mayor, you’ve got some static on your mic there. I’m sorry, I’ll try to avoid the static. So here’s my question then to Mr. Barrett and it is this.

He made specific leave to not proceed with any of these with any other action at this point by virtue of the of the I believe the because of the LPAT challenge. And so I just wonder if he might augment his comments on that. I’m not concerned about another application coming forward. I mean, Council can deal with that as it sees fit.

So that’s less my concern than it is respecting our processes as well. So I wonder, could I ask through you, Chair, Mr. Barrett, comment on that, please? Could be a bit specific for my sake.

Yeah, thank you. I thought I heard Mr. Barrett suggest that that as much as Council can a committee can make the recommendation it chooses. I thought I heard Mr.

Barrett suggest that this was from his perspective not in order. So by virtue of the of the challenges put in put, I believe by this group, friends of Meadow Lily, in challenging the last Council decision. So if I if I misunderstood that perhaps Mr. Barrett can clarify.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, my the reason I mentioned that is it does speak somewhat to the order, I believe that the chair was speaking to on something like this. Normally something like this, if it was to come in would be asked would be directed to staff for us to come back to with some comment or some recommendation on this. What I was just trying to advise you now is that as part of a comeback on this, and because this is is something that is live at this point, is that there is an appeal on these lands.

These folks are repellents within this area. And so what what my suggestion to you would be is that it would not perhaps be appropriate for Council to be asking staff to undertake or start to initiate a planning process in an area where there is an appeal that addresses some of these concerns with respect to what’s going on in the area. I also don’t want to just pick up on something that that Councillor Lewis mentioned. The conservation master plan has just been done just completed and just endorsed and adopted by this Council.

The full extent of the ecologically sensitive and environmentally significant area has been identified. And as well that conservation master plan contemplated development adjacent to it and the natural heritage issues associated with any future development, the parameters have already been established and there would be nothing that would come out of a secondary planning process that could actually add or augment to that because in fact the degree of work that’s been done ecological and environmental within a conservation master plan is well beyond what we would do for environmental work that would be associated through a secondary planning process. So there is no change that would be anticipated to the ecological or environmental conditions nor any change to what development would have to do to mitigate any proposed development adjacent to those environmental limits. So I just wanted to ensure that the committee was aware of that.

And as I also said, I did indicate and I did agree that the status of Meadowlily Road as a rural cross-section within the city is somewhat unique and that that is really the only outstanding issue. The cultural, all of the other issues that are laid out there are already fully protected would not be augmented through a secondary planning process. And certainly if it was Council’s direction, certainly we could look at whether or not it would be appropriate to look at special policies that might be put in place to address how development might respect or occur adjacent to that Meadowlily Road sub is certainly something that would be done. But I would suggest to you that that doesn’t need to be done within the context of a secondary plan that is certainly going to not provide Council with any more direction as it relates to the preservation of heritage, identified heritage resources in the area, or identified ecological and environmental resources within the area.

You won’t get any more direction than what you already have through that work that’s been done. But certainly if there’s a desire that we look at special policies that might be associated for development adjacent to Meadowlily Road and opportunities to preserve its rural character, that’s something we can certainly look at. But again, that’s something that I would suggest would come to us who will referral rather than the explicit direction to undertake this full study. The only other thing that I would add to that is that I’m not too sure quite honestly, as we go through that process, given what the demands might be associated with development along that road, the degree to how that character could be maintained when you couple the needs for infrastructure and rural urban servicing with that.

But it’s certainly something that we could look at through the process. So certainly something that’s more scoped that we could look at would could be appropriate. I would also remind the committee that for applications that are already in and decisions that have already been made, any change in these policies would not apply in those instances. So it would only apply to the to the remaining parcels that are along that streetscape.

So Chair, thank you, Mr. Bear. So Chair, I appreciate the spirit of Councillor Hillier’s comments here. I’m not sure that that this is the process based on what staff have indicated to get us to where we need to get to.

And I’m also concerned about a precedent where an appellant who is the author of the letter and has challenged our council decision, that’s fine. But it just seems that we have a practice, I think, in some circumstances that when, and perhaps in all, that when something is put in front of the tribunal for consideration by an appellant that this particular motion referred by Councillor Hillier may not be appropriate. And again, it may well be in the future. But I do think that there’s a better process to get where we need to get to.

I know the Councillor Turner has been to speak and perhaps he might share his thoughts on it with his experience on planning, but I’ve got some concerns about approving that tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. I’m glad to Mr. Barrett and the mayor had a chance to speak there.

Try not to duplicate too much. This is a parcel that has strong emotional connection to the neighbourhood. And it’s an important component of our natural heritage system and our community. And so I think it’s quite appropriate that we take measures to ensure its preservation and its development in proper course.

What you’ve heard from Mr. Barrett is that we’ve done most of that. The question, and my question was going to be from Mr. Barrett, what tools could we use outside of a secondary plan that could address the meta-lily road in specific?

And I was thinking about special area of policies or something along those lines and he addressed that. The natural heritage system is well delineated. A lot of work and a lot of time and a lot of stakeholders were involved in identifying that. For identifying where development could occur and where it could not occur.

So any inference that that wouldn’t happen isn’t correct. It’s well protected and well identified. So really the last question and it is what happens with meta-lily road as it gets developed. And there are a couple good questions in there.

But a secondary plan is not the appropriate mechanism to go through that. I think there’s a lot of hangover from the application and the question of what was ultimately decided there. The Ontario Lands Tribunal will make the decision on that at the end of the day. And so I think probably the appropriate course at this time allow that to continue its course.

Let’s get that back. At the appropriate time then we can ask staff for options for how to address the evolution of development on meta-lily and all those amenities and questions that are brought up in the letter. But at this point I think the motion that’s being proposed here would not be appropriate. Thank you Mr.

Councillor Turner. Any other comments? Councillor Layman. Thank you and I did not support the development on this road.

And I think it is a special areas Council Turner had mentioned. However I recognize the process and for Mr. Mayor’s comments a secondary plan would not add any more protection that is already there. It would create more work for staff.

I appreciate that as well. Mr. Barrett did say it might be appropriate as a referral back to staff to come back with options for maybe a more specific plan for what we can do to protect this particular road and the areas around it. So if the mover and seconder would consider maybe changing the motion to a referral back along those lines I think that might get more attraction here.

And from what I’m hearing I’m going to request that they might consider that. Thank you Councillor Layman. The committee will allow me I’ll make some comments from the chair. I’m not going to repeat what I’ve heard from the Mayor and from Councillor Turner.

And one of my concerns here is if we do support a motion like this I’m kind of blown away that we can get motions on the floor here based on a letter that we’ve received with really no communication or further conversation or delegation request. But having said that I have concerns because I’ve heard loud and clear from staff that there is that cultural significance and work that can be done on the road. And if this goes forward I or gets defeated can we ask for a referral I guess maybe I’m going to clerks for that question just to make sure that we are able to continue you know the conversation or continue the concerns of how we develop in this area having regard for the road. Not sure who can answer that question but I just want to make sure we’re not stifling the conversation here with this motion.

Madam Chair if I could perhaps respond to that it’s Michael Schultest. Just to be clear is the question related to the request motion to initiate a city led secondary plan or is in relation to a referral? I think we have the motion on the floor which is to initiate a city led secondary plan. You you will want to be cautious if that is ultimately approved by council.

You may have some challenges in going in a different direction so I would just caution. However if it’s a referral then that would be sent to staff and of course at that point then the motion is arising out of the report back those are the ones that you would be dealing with the council. Thank you Mr. Schultest.

With that I know we have a motion on the floor. Councillor Hillier. Well listen to the discussion I think I would like to amend my motion to support a referral to staff for development of these special areas the special ESA areas. I’m just trying to think of the words for it.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you Madam Chair if I can assist maybe and certainly as a seconder I’d be happy to support that as well. The the communication be referred back be referred to civic administration for review and for consideration in the development of special area policies for mentally road south to be reported back to PEC at a future meeting. So we have an amendment on the floor.

Councillor Turner. Thanks Madam Chair I think that motion would be appropriate at the appropriate time. I don’t think the appropriate time is now with the appeal still pending but if something similar to come forward at the time we heard back on the outcome of the appeal I think that would be a good time to consider it. At this point I would vote against it until such time.

Any other comments from committee members? Councillor Layman. Oh sorry Mr. Mayor and then I’ll go to Councillor Layman.

All right well thank you very much. I agree with Councillor Turner well intended and I appreciate Councillor Hillier and Councillor Lewis’s thoughts around this but I would suggest you write an idea wrong time and so based on that and with deep respect I am going to vote against it. Councillor Layman. Thank you my only concern here as Mr.

Barrett stated it if we had changes in policy any planning or any applications that have already come through would not be subject to those change in our policy. So I’m not too sure when LPAT would be coming back with decisions on this and I would be discouraged if I saw something come to our planning department an application that would skirt our intentions here tonight so I will support the motion. Okay so we can proceed to we’ve got an amendment and I think for clarity if I don’t see it on the amendment. If I can go to the clerks before I do that Councillor Turner.

Madam Chair I don’t think it’s an amendment I think it was a withdrawal and a reintroduction so we don’t have it because it’s there’s not a main motion anymore. Those are two different motions. So we had a withdrawal and now we have a new motion and if we can see the motion before we vote for our motion to refer. Yes I think it’s good for us to see what we’re voting on.

I’ll go to Councillor Lewis while we’re waiting. Councillor Lewis thank you Madam Chair and I recognize I may be just perhaps repeating myself a little bit here and that I may not sway anyone on this. But I think a referral for staff’s consideration is a much softer and it’s a different approach than a direction to initiate a secondary plan and with again with all due respect to my colleagues as taking words from the mayor himself. If not now when when this appeal is settled at all pad if there’s another one are we going to wait again for special area policies and then another appeal comes forward and we’re going to wait again at some point a referral to staff actually has has no motion on here yet other than to refer it to them for consideration and then they would have to report back and bring something to us and at that point we might be making a decision that perhaps would have an impact perhaps have an impact on an appeal.

But if we don’t do this and that’s the question that I ask colleagues who aren’t sure that they should be supporting this is when till this appeals over but then there’s another one in the queue. At some point a decision has to be made here whether we’re going to look at having staff potentially bring forward some special area policies and so I encourage you to support this. We will send it off to Mr. Barrett and his team at some point they will come back to us with a a report which will have some recommendations and then at that point we’ll be at a decision-making point but I hope you’ll let them do the work to address the concerns that we’re hearing from the community on this and not postpone that until there’s perhaps until it’s too late.

Thank you Councillor Lewis and there is the motion that the communication be referred to the civic administration for review and to prepare a special area of policies for ESAs and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. Councillor Lewis. Sorry I think that the intent of Councillor Hill here and myself and if I’m wrong Councillor Hill you’re can correct me on this but I think it is to prepare special area policies for the Middle Lily Road South area. The ESA is not actually part of the Middle Lily Road South it is in adjacent area but I think that’s the intent.

Okay as we make a change to that I think the clerk has that information if I can now just make a comment here from the chair I appreciate the the concerns and the importance of this area to the community without a doubt but I do not think there is this this rush to make a decision right away when it comes to the special area policies there’s always opportunities to do that but given that there is an appeal in this area to me it is not the appropriate time there are opportunities that exist and I I think it’s important that we we look at other opportunities that will not be supporting the referral back. If we can oh this or can we I’m sorry Councillor Layman. I just saw a vote come up on my Instagram so I’m yeah no well to the verbal I think it’s important that we see the the motion to refer back with the changes Councillor Lewis and Councillor Hillyer and I’m going to go there we do have a mover in Councillor Lewis seconded by Councillor Hillyer and I’ll go around the table Councillor Turner no Councillor Hillyer yes Mr. Mayor no Councillor Lewis yes Councillor Layman yeah and I vote no closing the vote the motion here sorry the motion loses on a tie so with that I understand there is no decision coming out of the Planning and Environment Committee.

I would say that we can at least receive the the report or receive the letter from the community that doesn’t preclude us from doing anything at a future time. Thank you with that I would that is a motion to receive the secondary Councillor Layman I’ll go around the table to receive the correspondence Councillor Turner yes Councillor Hillyer yes Mr. Mayor yes Councillor Lewis yes Councillor Layman yes and I vote yes closing the vote the motion carries six to zero and with that I’ll go to five deferred matters additional business committee members I see none and I will look for an adjournment in Councillor Turner seconded by Councillor Hillyer can we do a hand vote or do we need a verbal hand vote everyone thanks I vote yes thank you Mr. Mayor thanks everyone good night