February 28, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:01 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. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.1 to 2.9, inclusive and Item 3.4, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West (39T-04510-4)

2022-02-28 SR 1284 1388 Sunningdale Rd W - 39T-04510-4

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 entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc. and Claybar Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot 23, Concession 5, (Geographic Township of London), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the south side of Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, and on the north side of the Heard Drain, municipally known as 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London, Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc. and Claybar Developments Inc., for the Foxhollow North Kent Subdivision, Phase 4 (39T-04510_4) appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b) the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “B”; and,

c)  the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.2   Development Charge Claimable Works for Sunningdale Court Subdivision Phase 1 (39T-18501)

2022-02-28 PEC SR DC Claimable Works for Sunningdale Court Subdivision - Full

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Source of Financing appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE APPROVED with respect to the subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the Development Charge claimable works related to the Sunningdale Court Subdivision Phase 1.   (2022-D04))

Motion Passed

2.3   472 Richmond Street - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP22-003-L)

2022-02-28 SR 472 Richmond Street - HAP22-003-L - Full

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for the alteration of the beaver fence, a heritage attribute of the heritage designated property at 472 Richmond Street, individually designated and located within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED as submitted and consistent with the Conservation Plan appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix C;

it being noted that the Heritage Planner will be circulated on any submittals to assist in ensuring compliance with the Conservation Plan for the beaver fence.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.4   516 Elizabeth Street - Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP22-006-L)

2022-02-28 SR 516 Elizabeth Street - HAP22-006-L

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows on the heritage designated property at 516 Elizabeth Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

a) the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be installed in a manner that replicates the muntins of the former wood windows; 

b)  the windows and exterior grilles be painted to match the existing trim work on the building;

c)  the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be completed within six months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

d)  the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.5   346, 370 and 392 South Street, 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street and 124 Colborne Street (H-9462)

2022-02-28 SR SoHo Lands - H-9462

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by SoHo Vision Alliance, relating to the property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street, 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street and 124 Colborne Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision and R8 Special Provision (hh-5R4-6(13)/R8-4(59), hh-5R8-4(56), hh-5R8-4(57), hh-5R8-4(58)) Zone TO a Residential R4 Special Provision and R8 Special Provision (R4-6(13)/R8-4(59), R8-4(56), R8-4(57), and R8-4(58)) Zone to remove the “h” and “h-5” holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.6   1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road (H-9466)

2022-02-28 1738 1742 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road - H-9466

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Baker Planning Group, relating to lands located at 1738, 1742, 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(19)) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-h-100-R1-3(20)) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-100-R4-6(9)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-100-R6-5(55)) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(19)) Zone, a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(20)) Zone, a Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(9)) Zone, and a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(55)) Zone to remove the h and h-100 holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.7   695 and 585 Sovereign Road (H-9467)

2022-02-28 SR 695 and 585 Sovereign Road - P-9460

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 the application by Southwest Sun Property Corporation, relating to the property located at 695 and 585 Sovereign Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to deem Lot 19-1 and Lot 28-1, Registered Plan No. M21, City of London, County of Middlesex, not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act;

b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the by-law passing and undertake registration of the Deeming By-law, in accordance with the provisions in subsections 50(28) and 50(29) of the Planning Act; and,

c)  the applicant BE REQUIRED to pay for any costs incurred to register the deeming by-law at the Land Registry Office.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8   34 Princeton Terrace - Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement

2022-02-28 SR Limiting Distance Agreement - 34 Princeton Terrace

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Building and Chief Building Official, the following actions be taken with respect to a Limiting Distance (no-build) Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Chantal McQueen and Paul McQueen, for the property located at 34 Princeton Terrace, London, Ontario:

a)  the proposed Limiting Distance Agreement appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 for the property at 34 Princeton Terrace between The Corporation of the City of London and Chantal McQueen and Paul McQueen BE APPROVED; and,

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022, to approve the Limiting Distance Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Chantal McQueen and Paul McQueen for the property at 34 Princeton Terrace, and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London as the adjacent property owner.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.9   Building Division Monthly Report - January, 2022

2022-02-28 Building Division Monthly Report - January

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Building Division Monthly report for January, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   493 Springbank Drive - Demolition Request

2022-02-28 SR 493 Springbank Drive Demolition Request

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the former gate house and maintenance garage on the heritage listed property at 493 Springbank Drive, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the former gate house and maintenance garage on the property; it being noted that the property located at 493 Springbank Drive should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

it being further noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.    (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   2631 Hyde Park Road / 1521 Sunningdale Road West - Request to Remove Property from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2022-02-28 SR 2631 Hyde Park Road - Request to Remove Property from Register

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, that the property located at 2361 Hyde Park Road/1521 Sunningdale Road West BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the staff presentation with respect to this matter;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

A. Jomaa, no address provided; and,

M. Moussa, 155 Thornton Avenue.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   3rd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Advisory Committee

2022-02-17 EEPAC Report(1)

Moved by: S. Lehman

Seconded by: S. Hillier

That Items 2.1 to 2.9, inclusive and Item 3.4, BE APPROVED.

Yeas:  (5): A. Hopkins , S. Lewis, S. Lehman, S. Turner, and S. Hillier

Absent: (1): E. Holder

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 17, 2022:

a)  the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee heard a verbal presentation from M. McKillop, Environmental Services Engineer and P. De Carvalho, Restoration Specialist and S. Braun, Water Resource Engineer, Matrix Solutions Inc., with respect to the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resiliency Class Environmental Assessment;

b)   the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee heard a verbal presentation from M. McKillop, Environmental Services Engineer and P. De Carvalho, Restoration Specialist and S. Braun, Water Resource Engineer, Matrix Solutions Inc., with respect to the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant Climate Change Resiliency Class Environmental Assessment;

c)  the Working Group report relating to the Oxford Street West/ Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that additional comments may be provided to the Civic Administration by the Working Group;

d) the Working Group report relating to the Windermere Road Improvements Municipal Class Environmental Assessment - Environmental Impact Study BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

e)  clauses 1.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1 and 3.2,  BE RECEIVED for information.

3.3   655 - 685 Fanshawe Park Road West (Z-9396)

2022-02-28 SR 655-685 Fanshawe Park Road W Z-9396

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the  application by SAB Realty Limited, relating to the property located at 655-685 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 28, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 22, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan, 2016 and the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC1(21)/RSC4(19)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA5(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individual made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

B. McCauley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhood Commercial Node (NCN) designation; and,

  •    the recommended amendment provides additional uses that are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area and provides an increased opportunity to effectively utilize the existing buildings.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   2nd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage

2022-02-09 LACH Report(1)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage, from its meeting held on February 9, 2022:

a)  on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for the alteration of the beaver fence, a heritage attribute of the heritage designated property located at 472 Richmond Street, individually designated and located within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED as submitted and consistent with the Conservation Plan appended to the staff report dated February 9, 2022;

it being noted that the Heritage Planner will be circulated on any submittals to assist in ensuring compliance with the Conservation Plan for the beaver fence;

b)  M. Johnson, Senior Planner, BE ADVISED that the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) does not object to the conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIS), dated September 27, 2021, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to the McCormick’s Biscuit Company located at 1156 Dundas Street; it being noted that the proponent is encouraged to attend a meeting of the LACH early in the site design process to ensure meaningful consultation on the adaptive reuse of the former McCormick Biscuit Factory structure; it being further noted that the Notice of Planning Application, dated December 17, 2021, from M. Johnson, Senior Planner, with respect to a Notice of Planning Application related to a Draft Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 1156 Dundas Street, and the above-noted HIS, were received;

c)  the matter of updating City of London Public Meeting Notices and Notices of Planning Applications to include heritage notifications BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the Planning and Policy Sub-Committee reviewed the Planning Act (O.Reg. 543/06 (15)) requirements for planning notices, as well as a

number of sample notices from other jurisdictions, and identified the following:

  • while not explicitly required in the Planning Act, the Sub-Committee believes the identification of designated heritage status on applicable notices would benefit the City’s overall engagement and communications strategy and this would give the public important information on planning applications and would allow more meaningful and informed public

participation;

  • the Sub-Committee understands that the Civic Administration may have an existing template used for planning notices, but would like to encourage consideration of including designated heritage status on notices during the next review of this template;

  • the Sub-Committee recommends, for simplicity, identifying heritage designated status (e.g. Part IV or Part V  designations and associated Heritage Conservation District) and not properties listed on the City’s

heritage register although additional criteria may also be considered; and,

  • the Sub-Committee notes that the Planning Act requirements are minimums, and the City can choose to go above and beyond on notice requirements; it being noted that this is consistent with London Plan Policies 1615-16 which emphasize the importance of meaningful dialogue, and empowering residents to participate in the planning process;

it being further noted that the Planning and Policy Sub-Committee Report, from its meeting held on January 27, 2022, was received;

d)  on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the removal and replacement of the windows on the heritage designated property located at 516 Elizabeth Street, within the Old East Heritage  Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

  • the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be installed in a manner that replicates the muntins of the former wood windows;

  • the windows and exterior grilles be painted to match the existing trim work on the building;

  • the installation of the proposed exterior grilles be completed within six months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit;

and,

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

e)  on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the former gate house and maintenance garage located on the heritage listed property at 493 Springbank Drive, the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the former gate house and maintenance garage on the property; it being noted that the property located at 493 Springbank Drive should remain on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as it is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest;

f)  on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the property located at 2361 Hyde Park Road/1521 Sunningdale Road West BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

g)  clauses 1.1, 2.2, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 3.7 to 3.9, inclusive, 4.1, 5.3 and 5.5 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 1 minute)

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. 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 five, one, nine, six, one, three, four, eight, nine, extension, three, four, two, five. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca.

So moving along, we’ll go to any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Dean Nunn, I will now go to the consent items. Are there any items that the committee would like to remove? Dean Nunn, just to go over the consent items.

There are a number of holding provisions as well as the building division monthly report. Well, as I’d like to draw the committee members’ attention to the latch report that is attached to the end of our agenda. There are a number of items in the consent item, as well as in the scheduled items that relate to the latch report. And I’d just like to go over them with committee members.

2.3 is 2.1 in the latch report. 2.4 is 5.1 in the latch report. 2.5 is 3.7 in the latch report. 2.7 is 3.9, 3.1 is 5.2, and 3.2 is 5.4 of the latch report.

So I’d just like to bring those items to the committee members’ attention. Before I move forward with a motion to receive the consent items, I would like to first of all congratulate our new deputy city mayor planning and economic development, Mr. Scott Nathers. I know he is here this evening joining us.

And I understand this is his first planning and environment committee meeting under his new position. Welcome, Mr. Mathers. So with that, I’m looking for a mover of consent items.

Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillier. And are there any questions that members may have? Councillor Layman. Just a comment on 2.3 on 472 Richmond Street.

We can see the value of heritage here, the fence. Oh, it was an excellent report. Learned a lot about that property and that fabulous church that goes all the way back to the 1800s history on that location and through such a 100 years of being a focal point of London. And you can, again, the value of that perimeter fencing, which adds so much to that property.

I’m glad we’re able to move that and keep that whole and repair it ‘cause it looks like it’s been, has seen better days. So very, very good report and I appreciate the read. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Is there any other comments from committee members?

I see none. I wonder if the committee will allow me just to inquire on a couple consent items. The first one is 2.2. I’ve got a question to staff regarding the development for its claimable works for Sunnydale Court subdivision.

And the estimate is a little bit higher than what is allowed and given that there were a number of bids and it’s still exceeded the lowest bid. I would like to ask staff if this is something we’re gonna see more and more often as costs increase and the need for construction keeps going. So if I could go to staff. Well, thank you through you, Madam Chair.

So this is both surprising and unsurprising given the current economic conditions. You’ll see that there is two projects that are being requested for additional funding. One is 35% over the cost estimate. The other is 65% over the cost estimate, which are considerably higher than we would anticipate.

However, it was a competitive tender process with three bids and that was the lowest bid. We do note that the development charges rates for 2022 have increased by the index, which was considerable this year to help address cost increases that we are anticipating. This is something we’re gonna be monitoring closely and we’ll be looking at whether or not it makes sense to come to committee and council with a more global approach to addressing some of these potential cost issues as well. But I will note that you do have a good control mechanism in place with the source of financing approach that we’ve introduced for claims versus the older works approach to make sure the DC Reserve funds can accommodate increases where appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Yoman for that explanation. I think being on the committee here, it’s important that we understand the development charges and increases that can be expected as we move forward with construction, which is also needed in our city. And with that, I did, I would like to, I know we’ve got a motion on the floor for the consent items.

I understand that there is no longer gonna be a delegation from EPAC and I would like to bring that up to the consent items as well. There is an added presentation on the agenda, but there is no delegation request. So if the committee would allow me to do that, I’ve got some nods. I don’t have anyone having concerns, just bringing it up to the consent items as opposed to having it as a scheduled item since there’ll be no delegation request with the report.

So with that, we have all the consent items and a motion. And we’ve added the 3.4 delegation, which no longer is existing, but we do have the report. And with that, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So moving along to our second for this evening is 3.1, which is a public participation meeting regarding the demolition requests by Woodland Cemetery for the former gate house and maintenance garage on the heritage listed property at 493 Springbank Drive. I’m looking for a mover to open the public participation with Hilliers, seconded by Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I could just go to staff for just a very quick verbal.

Hi there, Madam Chair. This is Michael Breckwell, Heritage Planner. I can provide a brief introduction to this. Yes, please proceed.

Okay, thank you. This is a demolition request for the heritage listed property at 493 Springbank Drive, which is otherwise known as Woodland Cemetery. The Woodland Cemetery property is listed on the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources as all cemeteries in London are and has been a site of Woodland Cemetery since the 1870s. The demolition request specifically pertains specifically to the former gate house and the garage just inside the gates accessed from Springbank Drive.

And just a few notes on the property for the benefit of the committee. Woodland Cemetery was first established in this location in the 1870s and prior to this earlier versions of the cemetery were located in St. Paul’s Cathedral, downtown, and later what is now Queen’s Park at the Western Fair. There’s a number of monuments and structures of note located within the Woodland Cemetery, including the Annie Picks the Fulford Mausoleum, which was London’s first privately owned mausoleum.

It was designed by a London firm of More in Henry and also includes some statues that were sculpted by Walter Allward, one of Canada’s greatest sculptors. And there’s also a 1920 public mausoleum, which was the first public mausoleum in London. As note though, the demolition request at present is for the former gate house and the garage. Both structures were constructed in the late 1940s and early 1950s during a period of administrative and infrastructure improvements for the cemetery.

The gate house is a vernacular two-story dwelling primarily used for administrative offices and the garage was constructed around the same timing consists of a single story buffer structure. A written intent to demolish the two buildings was received on January 24th, 2022 and a demolition request for a building or structure on a heritage-listed property triggers a formal 60-day review process, which includes consultation with the latch that took place on February 9th, a public participation meeting at the planning environment committee and council decision. That whole period expires on March 25th, 2022. Preliminary evaluation of the property according to the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906 was completed for this demolition request.

And it’s apparent that the Woodland Cemetery certainly does have cultural heritage value or interest based on the preliminary evaluation. However, the gate house and the garage were not identified as parent attributes. So the staff recommendation is to consent to the demolition request for the former gate house and the garage within it being noted that the property still retains potential cultural heritage value or interest and should remain on the register of cultural heritage resources. And I’m happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Grego. Any technical questions from committee? I see none.

So I will move to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation. Just one more time if anyone would like to make comments to the recommendation here and see none. So with that, I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Lewis. And if we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And I’d like to be members for motion comments.

Is there anyone that would like to make a comment? Councillor Lewis. Not a comment, Madam Chair. I’m just prepared to move the staff recommendation.

Yeah, the motion as seconder from Councillor Hilliard. With that, we are going to be consenting to the demolition of the former gate house and the maintenance garage on the property. Just from the chair, I’d just like to make the comment very familiar with this cemetery. It’s not too far from where I live and really appreciate the fact that it’s gonna retain its potential cultural heritage designation on the register.

So with that, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries. Moving along to our next schedule point two. And it is a public participation meeting.

It’s a request to remove the property from the register of cultural heritage resources by Auburn developments for the property at 2631. I park road in 1521 Sunnydale Road West into committee members to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. Councillor Hilliard, closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. And I understand that there is a panel on this. I would like to go to staff. Thank you.

This is Michael Greigweil here to explainer again. I’ve had a brief presentation and there’s a few slides that are attached to the out of the agenda. They begin on page 217 of the out of the agenda. So this is a request to remove the property at 2631 Hyde Park Road in 1521 Sunnydale Road West from the register of cultural heritage resources.

The property consists of approximately a 50 acre property located at the northeast corner of Hyde Park Road in Sunnydale Road West, consisting primarily of cultivated fields. Just some brief background on the property and its inclusion on the register. The subject property was included within the portion of lands in the former London Township that were annexed in 1993. Shortly after annexation, a Fox Hollow community plan was prepared as a part of an official plan amendment and the lands were designated and so on for the sole purpose of cemetery use.

Given the intended use in the 1990s as a cemetery, the property was included on the 2016 inventory of heritage resources. That was later adopted in 2007 in its entirety, which is now the register of cultural heritage resources. All cemeteries in London are included on the register of cultural heritage resources and the subject property was included on the register as it was intended to be the future site of the Fox Hollow of Mount Pleasant Cemetery. But the property currently has no burials or instruments.

Due to high groundwater levels that were identified within recent years, the property is no longer intended to be used for cemetery purposes in the future and a planning application has been received for the property. A request to remove the property from the register was received on January 4th, sorry, January 24th, 2022. And the process to remove a property is similar as the process to demolish a building or a heritage listed structure. So consultation with latch, public participation meeting as planning environment committee and council decision.

Due to the change in planned use, the property no longer retains potential cultural heritage value or interest. And as noted, there is a draft plan subdivision for the property. Just as a matter of clarification, the removal of the property from the register is an Ontario Heritage Act application, which is separate from, but in a way related to the planning application. Information on the planning application can be found on page four of the slides for the presentation, which I believe is on page 220 of the added agenda.

And I believe Mr. Feldberg can speak to some of the planning application if there are specific questions. With regards to the Ontario Heritage Act application, notices were mailed to the property owners within a 120 meter radius, as well as community groups, including the ACO London region branch, Middlesex Historical Society and the Urban League of London. And a latch was also consulted on the application and agreed with the staff recommendation.

As the property no longer retains cultural heritage value or interest, the property no longer warrants inclusion on the register. And as a result, the staff recommendation is to remove the property from the register of cultural heritage resources. And again, I’d be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr.

Grego. Any technical questions from committee members? Councillor Turner. Just with clarification, this property is part of that discussion that we had about the school site and the land swap for Auburn, is that correct?

That’s right. I’d like to confirm that with staff. Madam Chair, yes, Councillor, that is part of the amount pleasant application that we brought to planning committee in May of last year and then received direction from Council in September of ‘21 to consider a draft plan application at this property. Thank you.

Any other technical questions? I’d like to now go to the applicant if the applicant is here. I’d like to now proceed to the public if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation. Yes, sir, welcome.

Please state your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. Welcome. I’ll be very quick. Can you hear me there?

Yes. Hi, my name’s Ali Joma. I am representing the owners of the adjacent property, 1431 Sunningdale Road West. And it’s adjacent to the property, which is requesting to remove the register of property from cultural heritage.

Our request back in 2012 had been submitted to the city to include the property in the urban growth boundary. And at that time, services had been budgeted to our lands and the parcel of land east of us. The council had agreed to work with the city staff, including members of our development community to agree to move forward on three lands like ours, which were designated as tier one status because they could immediately be developed with no cost to the city. And we’ll bring in great revenues for permits and property taxes.

Since then, we have approached the city to continue the approval process and have not succeeded in moving forward representing respected mayor and council members. The years have passed where many community members have addressed the concern that London, while limiting access to service land available within the city limits, has impacted the growth of the city, as well as the increased revenues that help the city’s growth, by slowing the progress of development within the city limits. In an article posted today in the London Free Press, it is referring to this issue. It says that this subject has been raised by many individuals and organizations, including the London Development Institute.

It mentioned that revenues from new building permits increased by 70% from 143 million to 257 million in Middlesex Center alone, because developers are given the opportunity to develop in their regions. Our request today, and I’ll close here, is to include the whole block of land that runs east of the adjacent two, six, three, one, high park, one, five, three, two, sunny day east towards Wonderland, in removing the register of property from cultural heritage resources, and speeding up the comprehensive review to review the supply in the north and west of the city, which will not have capacity within five years. The OMB has provided a solution without increasing the urban growth boundary through policies that it has approved in November 2019. We would appreciate your attention to be drawn on this issue.

Thank you for your time and efforts. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the recommendation to remove the cemetery from the register of cultural heritage resources? Yes.

Mr. Musa, is this the item you would like to speak to? I’ll ask one more time, and the question from the secretary was, is Mr. Musa, if you’re listening, if you’d like to speak to this recommendation?

It’s star six to unmute. Sorry about that. I didn’t realize I needed to unmute myself. Thought I was unmuted from there.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can, Mr. Musa. If you can identify yourself, address, if you wish, and you have up to five minutes, please proceed.

Mohammed Musa, 155-Fortanav. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t know where to start with this. There goes, and please feel free to reel me in, Madam Chair, if I go too far tangential.

I’m surprised by this application. My first thoughts are, we’re putting the card ahead of the horse, removing a cultural heritage designation from this property. Basically brings us to the point of, this is a foregone conclusion that the committee council is going to approve this for residential. Resone it.

Cemeteries are a very important part of any municipality. I mean, to the point that in 2016, the Provincial Policy Statement said that cemetery should be protected. It’s somewhere in there. If memory serves me correctly, it’s policy 1.1, not buried in there.

It’s pretty important. We’ve got an application here to remove this ahead of, sorry, a little disjointed here, ahead of a planning application coming forward. This property came into the urban growth boundary through a fight and appeal. I’m not exactly sure how in Vision 96, based on it being a sole solely for the use of a cemetery.

That is the reason that back in the 90s, with Vision 96 that this came into it. And here we are, 25, six years later, trying to rezone it for residential. And I know what the argument’s going to be. We need more residential.

It’s not an argument that flies with me very well. So my question is, my questions are, when’s the last time that the city of London if committee or anybody from committee or staff can let me know? When’s the last time that an OS3 property was rezoned to whether it be residential or egg one? And has it ever happened in the city of London?

Egg one or two, my apologies. The other question is, can we expand that scope and ask how often is this even done in Ontario? Takes me to the next point here. I find it surprising, actually I find it comical that the water levels are too high or six foot burial plots with vaults, yet in a couple of months, a month, three months, you guys will be getting an application where nine and 10 foot footings and foundation walls are currently gonna be good for this.

And as I said, I’m maybe going tangential here, that’s another application in itself, but cemeteries need to be protected. This came in under the guise of being a cemetery into our urban growth boundary. So either as the previous person was talking about, either you add everybody else into the urban growth boundary that didn’t quite think of this way of getting into it in the 90s, or you remove it from the urban growth boundary and project it. It was solely for the use of it as a cemetery.

And I find it offensive that we’re doing this, and this is leading to horse trading, basically, in terms of why we’re getting here, why we’re at this point. Mr. Busa, I know you asked me to reel you in, and I’m gonna reel you in. Okay, okay, my apology.

Nope, you’ve got about a minute, or just less than a minute. But I think personal comments aside, if you can stay with me. I apologize, I’m really, I’m somewhat frustrated with this. So the water table is apparently too high for cemetery, for burial plots, but it’s not going to be for foundation walls and footings.

There was one other point I was going to make, but, and we have any geotechnical data to support that the water table is high, or are we just gonna take the applicant’s word for it? And have any GPR studies been done to show that there are no burial plots? It’s very difficult to close a cemetery, even if it is not opened, per se. And Mr.

Busa, your time has come. Okay, my time is up. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and committee and staff. So I just have those questions, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment to the recommendation in front of us? I hear and see none, I am gonna ask one more time. Does anyone that would like to make a comment to the recommendation here and see none?

And with that, I’ll go to committee to close the PPM. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And I’d like to first go to staff to get a response from some of the questions that we’ve just heard.

And we’ll start with the first one about the request from the three of our owners to designate their properties and add them into the urban growth boundary. And then following up with Mr. Moose’s questions, and I might just go to Mr. Felberg on this one to give us a better understanding on the process and how we’ve got here, and then how we’re gonna move forward with this application.

And a couple of the questions were directed to staff about the zoning, if this is very unique to the city of London, as well as to the Province of Ontario designating an OS3 and zoning it to Agra, as well as the concerns around the water table. So if I can go to staff and address some of the questions that were raised. Certainly, Madam Chair, I’ll take a stab. And I think I can probably answer both of the questions.

Maybe not the specific around the OS3, we might have to take that back for more of a technical review and to see some of the history that we have here locally. But in regards to the first speaker member of the public, when it comes to the boundary and as indicated in the article this morning in the free press, we maintain an available number of years of supply in the city. And in order for us to consider any expansions to that, we take a look at the city wide and we look at that, the amount of supply that we have, but we have to undertake a comprehensive review to do that. So we have to go back, take a look at all the census data, look at the growth allocations and estimate where or how much supply we have and then we start to designate where that supply can be placed.

Our plan at this point is to report back to this committee later this year, probably early next year, actually next year, once the census data is available and growth allocations can be provided and established and then start working towards that comprehensive review before we come back to this committee to talk about the available number of residential locks in the city with regards to the process. So we are still, so the application for draft plan was circulated in December of 2021. The period closed in January, mid to late January and we’ve been receiving all the public and stakeholder comments to this point and we’ve been working with the applicant on coming up with a draft plan of subdivision. At this point, the plan is to come to this committee in late March or April with the recommendation from staff and at that point, this committee will have the opportunity to consider that based on the merits of the application.

Some of those technical studies that Mr. Musa was identifying, we would be considering those. I would be looking at hydrogiological geotechnical those types of things in order to establish the development limits. In regards to this particular heritage application, I don’t think there was anything there that we needed to address.

So I think that pretty much sums up the public questions. Thank you for that. And I’d just like to go back to the question around the zoning of the OS3 and how we’re changing the zoning. Would that information be coming back to us?

Yeah, certainly Madam Chair. Yeah, that would be something that we would be addressing through the application when that comes forward for the draft approval. But the specifics of what we’ve done here in the city, we’ll take that back to staff and we’ll take a look at what’s happened in the past and we’ll connect back to priority council. Thank you, Mr.

Felberg for your comments and answers. And I am going to look to the committee for any further comments or supporting the recommendation to remove this cemetery from the registered cultural heritage. Councillor Lin. I’ll move the staff recommendation.

And I’m looking for a seconder. Councillor Lewis, seconds. Any other comments from committee? Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with respect to Mr. Musa’s question, you can raise the point that these lands were included within the gross boundary as a result of their status as OS3 to provide cemetery space. Is that accurate through you, Madam Chair, staff?

Were these included on the premise that they provided a cemetery space or were these contemplated as developable lands within the UGB? And through you, Madam Chair. So those would be parts of the future application that we’ll bring forward. So that will be something that we’ll be identifying and analyzing as part of that application and that recommendation.

I don’t have the information in front of me at this point. Thank you. So just to clarify then, these are currently outside of the UGB? No, these lands are currently within their urban growth boundary.

They’re within the city limits and designated, they were designated as part for cemetery and as following direction from council in September last year, we’re asked to consider a draft plan application on these lands. Perhaps I can clarify my question a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Felford.

When the urban growth boundary was set, we identify lands that are included and excluded. We would identify a developable lands within the urban growth boundary or we could also identify some pieces of open space to be included as well, right? So the open space tree. If this wasn’t part of the calculation that we use for land needs analysis to set the urban growth boundary, would they’ve been included in the way that we set the urban growth boundary or since they don’t measure in they wouldn’t have at the time measured into the calculation of the UGB, what they’ve been, is this considered supplemental to the amount of land that we needed in the forecast to set the urban growth boundary?

Maybe that wasn’t terrifying, but hopefully— So just to understand it, Councillor, your question more or less is are these lands being added to the growth of lands? Right, we’ve got a net amount of developable land within the urban growth boundary by changing its status from OS3 to something else, which comes at a different point in time. Does that create a net increase in lands within the UGB? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, it would add additional lands to the UGB within the UGB, it would be part of that calculation. And thank you. Quick comments, initially I saw this as solely as a heritage deal listing application. Despite my misgivings about this application in general and this project and how it came to be, I would have supported the removal from the heritage inventory.

In light of the answer to that question, because we just saw through two delegations exactly the kind of problems that I’ll say at the horse trading, I created, because now we see a very large, many two question, how can we develop when they can? And we are throwing off the urban growth boundary balance calculation and it does. It ends up being an end run around how we calculate the urban growth boundary and the amount of lands that are developable within it by changing the categorization of it. So I have concerns about that.

And I recognize I’m in the minority on this, but as I said, I would have voted to support the removal of the designation just because I saw that as more a formality. I’m not looking to block the application, but in terms of general planning principles, I see that it was three provision as important in terms of the net overall amount within the UGB. Thank you, Councillor Turner, any other comments from committee members. I see none, I’d like to make a comment.

I do have a question first to staff, which would be, does this, my concerns are similar in terms of that we’re doing this prematurely almost. Can this decision to remove these lands from the register be done at a further time through the process, does it have to be done now? Madam Chair, this is Mike Gregwell. I can take a stab at this one.

Thank you for the question. Through the chair, and the owner of a heritage listed property can request to remove the property from the register at any time and council must consider the request to either make a decision as to whether the property should continue to be listed on the register or whether it should be removed. In terms of timelines, the second part of the wording in the act is that council must issue a notice of decision to the owner within 90 days of that decision. So it’s a timeline that’s after the request or after the decision, but there’s no timeline in terms of like there was a demolition request, you would have 60 days.

This one is 90 days from the decision. Thank you, Mr. Goodall for that clarification. I do appreciate it.

I don’t have a problem with supporting it. What I have a problem with right now is the uncertainty of how this may set a precedent for other lands that we may bring into the urban growth boundary. And I’m just being a little cautious here and will not be supporting it. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s important to weigh in on the other side of this colleagues. We have to make a planning decision based on an application to delist a property to speculate on what it might be in the future or what other applicants might come forward with on their adjacent properties or neighboring properties in the area is not the basis for refusing a delisting of a heritage property. And both staff and latch have said, there’s no reason to leave it on the list.

So respectfully, I understand the concerns about urban growth boundary, about what people might do with properties in the future. But that’s not what’s before us today. What’s before us is an application to delist a heritage property that our staff and our advisory committee are saying, doesn’t merit remaining on the registry. So whatever misgivings folks might have about future applications or future land uses, I think that those need to come forward.

If an application comes forward that raises your concern. I don’t think it’s grounds to refuse the delisting today. So I encourage colleagues to not get speculative on what the future holds, but to look at the matter that’s before us. And that’s the delisting which I’m gonna support as our staff and our advisory committee have recommended.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments? I see none. So if we can proceed to vote, closing the vote, the motion carries three to two.

And with that, I’d like to last public participation meeting, which is 3.3. And it is a public participation meeting for 655, 685, Central Park Road West looking to open up the PPM. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hellier. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

I’d like to go to staff for just a— Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a zoning by-law amendment for the lands known municipally as 665 to 685 Fanshawe Park Road West, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Fanshawe Park Road West and Wonderland Road North. The lands currently contain four stand-alone commercial buildings. The purpose of the application is to permit an increased range and intensity of neighborhood-scale commercial uses by rezoning the lands for most restricted service commercial special provision zone to a neighborhood shopping area special provision zone, as well as to facilitate the infill and intensification of an existing commercial center through the construction of a one-story building addition in front of the existing building on 685 Fanshawe Road West, which is currently occupied by the mastermind toys.

Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed range and intensity of uses is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is not expected to be significantly more intense than what is currently existing. The proposed changes will allow for greater flexibility of the future use and intensification of the subject lands, which are currently underutilized, helping meet the evolving needs of the surrounding community. The application is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the London Plan and the 1989 official plan, and it’s appropriate for the site. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment.

Thank you, and staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Wu. Any technical questions?

I see none. I’d like to go to the applicant. Thank you, Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes, please proceed.

Thank you. This has been McCauley with Selenika Priemmo. I have no further comments to add at this time, but I’m here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCauley. Any technical questions? You none.

I would like to now go to the public if there’s anyone that would like to make comments. To this recommendation, please come forward. We’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments. Do you none?

And with that, I’ll go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Layman. It carries five to zero. And with that, I’d like to go to committee for motion, comments, looking for someone to move.

The recommendation, Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Filrier. No further comments if we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. The number four items for direction.

We have 4.1, which is the second report of the London Advisory Committee on Heritage. There were a number of items on this that we’ve already dealt with and looking to the committee to approve or receive an approve. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to number five, which is the third matters, additional business. I see none. The adjournment.

Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Turner. And with that, can we have a hand vote? Everyone in favor? Thanks everyone, have a nice evening.