April 19, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM, with Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair, Councillor 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. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1 to 2.8, inclusive,  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

2022-03-23 TFAC Report - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, from it’s meeting held on March 23, 2022:

a)  the document appended to the 4th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee, with respect to the Climate Emergency Action Plan - Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) Recommendations, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration and the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) for their review and consideration;

it being noted that a representative from TFAC will attend the SPPC meeting at which this item will be discussed in order to present their recommendations; and,

b)  clauses 1.1 and 2.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Bill 13 Information Report

2022-04-19 PEC SR Bill 13 Information Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to Bill 13, Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021:

a) the staff report dated April 19, 2022 entitled “Bill 13, Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021” BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)  the above-noted staff report and the draft London Plan amendments to implement changes made by Bill 13, Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021, to the Planning Act BE CIRCULATED for public review in advance of a future Public Participation Meeting.   (2022-D02)

Motion Passed

2.3   Parking Standards Review Information Report

2022-04-19 SR Parking Standards Review Information Report REVISED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Parking Standards Review Information Report:

a) the preliminary alternative options of the Parking Standards Review, appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED; and,

b) the preliminary alternative options of the Parking Standards Update BE CIRCULATED for public comment;

it being noted that feedback received will inform a final Parking Standards Review Report and implementing a Zoning By-law Amendment that will be prepared for the consideration and approval of Municipal Council at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, including a public participation meeting.  (2022-T02)

Motion Passed

2.4   3315 Oriole Drive (Formerly 1752 and 1754 Hamilton Road) (P-9315)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 3315 Oriole Dr (formerly 1752-1754 Hamilton Road) - P-9315

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Thames Village Joint Venture Corporation to exempt lands located at 3315 Oriole Drive (formerly 1752-1754 Hamilton Road), legally described as Lot 65, Plan 33M-814, from Part-Lot Control:

a) pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to exempt Lot 65, Plan 33M-814 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act; it being noted that these lands are subject to a registered subdivision agreement and are zoned Residential R1 (R1-3) in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, which permits single detached dwellings; and,

b)  the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Lot 65, Plan 33M-814, as noted in clause a) above:

i) the applicant be advised that the cost of registration of the said by-law is to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City Policy;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii) that on notice from the applicant that a reference plan has been registered, and that conveyance of the registered part lots has occurred, that Part Lot Control be re-established by the repeal of the bylaw affecting the Lot/Block in question;

xiii) the Applicant shall ensure all existing buildings, structures and hard surfaced materials are removed and the land restored to its original condition prior to creation of the parcels; and,

xiv) the Applicant shall implement the recommendations of the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Eng Plus Ltd., dated March 25, 2019; and the Thames Village Subdivision – Phase 2, Thames Village Joint Venture Corp. Supplemental Noise Letter prepared by LDS Consultants Inc., dated June 5, 2020; including requirement for forced air heating, warning clauses to be included in all agreements of purchase and sale or lease of these dwellings, and installation of noise attenuation barriers, all in accordance with the Subdivision Agreement and accepted servicing drawings.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

2.5   414-418 Old Wonderland Road (H-9482)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 414 Old Wonderland Rd - H-9482

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Four Fourteen Inc. relating to the property located at 414 - 418 Old Wonderland Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 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 R5 Special Provision (h-5*R5-7(20)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(20)) Zone to remove the “h-5” holding provision.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.6   870 Kleinburg Drive (H-9477)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 870 Kleinburg Drive - H-9477

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of Applewood Market Place Inc., relating to the property located at 870 Kleinburg Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the lands FROM a Holding Special Provision Business District Commercial (hh-100h-173*BDC2(7))H18D75 Zone TO a Special Provision Business District Commercial (BDC2(7))H18D75 Zone to remove the “h”, “h-100” and “h-173” holding provisions.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.7   459 Hale Street (39CD-18503)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 459 Hale Street - 39CD-18503

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1247987 Ontario Inc. (Artisan Homes Inc.), relating to the property located at 459 Hale Street, the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to approve a one (1) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential vacant land plan of condominium File No. 39CD-18503, SUBJECT TO the revised conditions contained in the staff report dated April 19, 2022, as Schedule “B” .  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.8   1395 Riverbend Road (H-9486)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 1395 Riverbend Road - H-9486

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 1395 Riverbend Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 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 Business District Commercial BDC (hh-206BDC(31)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial BDC (BDC(31)) Zone to remove the “h” and “h-206” holding provisions.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   520 Sarnia Road (OZ-9432)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 520 Sarnia Road - OZ-9432

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 Horizen Developments LP, relating to the property located at 520 Sarnia Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend The London Plan to create a specific area policy in the Neighbourhoods Place Type at 520 Sarnia Road to permit an 8-storey apartment building and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend the 1989 Official Plan to ADD a policy to Section 10.1.3 – “Policies for Specific Areas” that would modify the ‘Community Commercial Node’ designation to permit an eight (8) storey apartment building with a total of 129 residential units at a density of 168 units per hectare without a commercial component on the ground floor, and also align this policy context with The London Plan;

c) the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan and The London Plan, as amended in clauses a) and b) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA1(3)) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-7()*B-) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan and urban design matters were raised during the application review process:

i) provide individual or common walkways that connect to the ground floor units to the City sidewalk, to encourage and allow residents and visitors to easily walk to transit and nearby amenities. Landscape buffering can be provided between the amenity spaces and the walkway to delineate the public from the private realm;

ii) provide sufficient setbacks for site plan planting requirements, and sufficient setbacks to retain existing trees and protect offsite tree roots, and/or provide adequate soil volumes for required perimeter plantings;

iii) include a sufficiently sized landscape buffer along the southern property line to provide space for the retaining wall and planting to screen between the residential uses to the south and the parking area;

iv)  include all connections to the sewer on Chapman Court from these lands and the adjacent Commercial property (Shell Gas Station); and,

v) provide all details and information regarding all easements, all servicing sewers though the subject site, any and all setbacks as required while ensuring there are no conflicts or encroachments to existing easements and servicing, no buildings or structures are to constructed over top of existing building sewers crossing this property or removal;

d) the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality residential apartment building, with a maximum height of eight (8) storeys, 129 dwelling units and a maximum density of 168 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services and matters:

  1.    Exceptional Building Design

  •    a built form located along Sarnia Road that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance, street oriented units and active uses along this frontage;

  •    treatment of the first three-storeys of the proposed building contrasts with the remainder of the building above to clearly delineate the attractive, pedestrian-oriented area within the public realm;

  •    a contemporary flat roof, with modern cornice lines and canopies for the balconies along the north side of the building, effectively announce the top of the building and help distinguish the building along the corridor;

  •    an adequately sized interior side yard setback is provided to allow for ample space for pedestrian connections, bicycle parking and landscaping to transition between he proposed building and the existing uses to the northeast;

  •    a larger than required rear yard setback is proposed between the building and the medium-density and high-density residential uses to the south, southeast and southwest;

  •    each elevation incorporates vertical portions of the building that are offset to provide for a unique visual variety and texture along the façade;

  •    a variety of materials, colours and textures break up the massing of the building into smaller sections, both vertically and horizontally, to appropriately frame the street and enhance the streetscape; and

  •    universal accessibility including units that provide the opportunity for any and all demographics, able-bodies or not, to live in the proposed development;

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

  •   a total of two(2) bachelor residential units will be provided for affordable housing;

  •    rents not exceeding 80% of the Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area as determined by the CMHC at the time of building occupancy;

  •    the duration of affordability set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy;

  •    the proponent enter into a Tenant Placement Agreement (TPA) with the City of London to align the affordable units with priority populations;

  •    these conditions to be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies.

e) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-laws as the recommendation implements the same height of eight (8) storeys, and same number of proposed units of 129 for which public notification has been given;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a revised recommendation, by-law and 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 these matters:

  •   M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

-   D. Radakovic, 30 Chapman Court;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, City Design and City Building, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

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

  •    the recommendation aligns the policy context of the 1989 Official Plan with The London Plan policies to exclusively permit the proposed residential development;

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

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

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

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   551 - 555 Waterloo Street (Z-9372)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 551-555 Waterloo St Z-9372

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of David Russel relating to the property located at 551-555 Waterloo Street, the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 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 Residential R3 Special Provision/Office Conversion/Temporary (R3-2(6)/OC4/T-73) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matter has been raised through the application review process, for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i) boundary landscaping along the north and west property boundaries to meet the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law and have screening/privacy qualities;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

-    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

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;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the policies of West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   Tow Truck / Impound Yard Zoning By-law Review (Z-9428)

2022-04-19 PEC SR Towing Business

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the zoning review initiated by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to all lands within the City of London, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the London Plan), to make zoning text changes to Sections 2 (Definitions), Section 28 (Restricted Service Commercial Zone), Section 40 (Light Industrial Zone), Section 41 (General Industrial Zone) and Section 42 (Heavy Industrial Zone) to address tow truck business and impounding yard land uses;

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

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

-  MNK Towing;

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

  •    the zoning review was initiated by the City of London to implement the London Plan Place Type Industrial policies and address zoning issues identified through the Business License review process;

  •    zoning changes were required to tow truck businesses and impound yards in specific zones which implement the policies; and,

  •    the amendments also provide for a broader range of possible locations for those uses to address on of the industries concerns.    (2022-C01A)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

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   1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road (39T-21056)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 1521 Sunningdale Rd W and Hyde Park - 39T-21506 O-9190 Z-9440 - REVISED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, further to the direction from Municipal Council on October 5, 2021 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Low Density Residential and Environmental Review designation and to amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space place type TO a Neighbourhoods Place Type and Environmental Review Place Type to be considered at a future public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the lands located at 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to amend the Official Plan to change the designation of the subject lands FROM an Open Space designation TO a Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation, Low Density Residential designation and Open Space designation;

b)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 2022 to:

i) amend The London Plan to change the Place Type of the subject lands FROM a Green Space Place Type TO a Neighbourhoods Place Type and a Green Space Place Type; and,

ii)  amend The London Plan to change the Street Classifications of the subject lands to add Street A and Street B as a Neighbourhood Connector to Map 3 – Street Classifications;

c)  the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix “C”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 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 Open Space (h-5-h-21-OS3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-h-149-h--R1-3) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-2-h-100-h-110-h-149-h--R1-3/R4-6()) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 (h-h-100-h-149- h--R1-10) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-110-h-149-h--R1-3/R4-6()) Zone; a Holding Residential R4/Residential R5/ Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-53-h-100-h-110-h-149- h--R4-6()/R5-5()/R6-5(*)) Zone; a Holding Residential R4/ Residential R5/ Residential R6/ Residential R7/ Residential R8, Restricted Office Special Provision (h-h-5-h-53-h-100-h-110-h-149-h--R4-6()/R5-5()/R6-5()/R7-H13-D75()/R8-4-H13-D75()/RO1()/RO2()) Zone; a Holding Open Space, Residential R4/ Residential R5/ Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-53-h-100-h-110-h-149-h-_-OS1//R4-6()/R5-5()/R6-5()) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; an Open Space (h-222-OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (h-222-OS5) Zone;

d) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Auburn Developments Inc., relating to the lands located at 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road; and,

e)  the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by Auburn Developments Inc., prepared by Stantec (Project No. 161413708), certified by Jeremy C.E. Mathews O.L.S., dated March 17, 2022, which shows a total of thirteen (13) low density residential blocks (Blocks 1-13), two (2) medium density residential blocks (Blocks 14-15), one (1) park block (Block 16), one (1) stormwater management facility/medium density residential block (Block 17), three (3) future road blocks (Blocks 18-20), four (4) road widening blocks (Blocks 21-24), three (3) road reserve blocks (Blocks 25-27), one (1) stormwater management facility/open space block (Block 28), and one (1) open space block (Block 29), serviced by five (5) new local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “D” appended to the staff report dated April 19, 2022;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication dated April 13, 2022 from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    R. Cracknell, 1535 Sunningdale Road West;

  •    B. Denda, 2545 Hyde Park Road;

  •    L. Regnier, 1445 Sunningdale Road West;

  •    M. Moussa, 155 Thornton Avenue;

  •    A. Jomaa, 1431 Sunningdale Road West; and,

  •    A. El-Turk, no address provided;

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

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

  •    the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

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

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

  •    the recommended Draft Plan supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, low-rise apartments along the Sunningdale Road West and Hyde Park Road.  The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by J. Morgan, Acting Mayor

That an extension of time for the delegation of L. Regnier BE GIVEN.

Motion Passed (4 to 2)

3.5   1284 Sunningdale Road West (Z-9548)

2022-04-19 PEC SR 1284 Sunningdale Road West - Z-9458

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of Thames Valley District School Board relating to lands located at 1284 Sunningdale Road West, the attached, revised, proposed by-law (Appendix ‘A’) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 3, 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 R4/R6/R7/R8 (h-h-54-h-71-h-95-h-100-R4-6(14)/R6-5/R-7-H15-D75-R-8-H15-D75) Zone TO a Holding Residential R4/R6/R7/R8, Neighbourhood Facility (h-h-54-h-71-h-95-h-100-R4-6(14)/R6-5/R-7-H15-D75-R-8-H15-D75-NF1) Zone;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated April 13, 2022, from J. Pratt, Associate Director and Treasurer, Thames Valley District School Board, with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    G. Vogt, Thames Valley District School Board;

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

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

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

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of the (1989) Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation; and,

  •    the zoning will permit the development of an elementary school and day care which are considered appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area, and consistent with the planned vision of the Neighbourhoods Place Type.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Urban Agriculture Strategy - 2021 Annual Report

2022-04-19 PEC SR 2021 Urban Agriculture Annual Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting of the appropriate Standing Committee, including but not limited to, the following related to the Urban Agriculture Strategy, :

a)    a clear process to apply to use city-owned land for urban agriculture;

b)    an inventory of available land and a process to work with civic administration to inquire;

c)    a standard licensing agreement and a standard rate for a licensing agreement (example $2.00/year);

d)    a transparent and equitable approach to determine who can enter into agreements;

e)    standards for expected outcomes and uses of the city land to ensure productivity and impact; and,

f)    to ensure the cost of this process is low to reduce financial barriers;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications:

the staff report dated April 19, 2022 entitled “Urban Agriculture Steering Committee”; and,

a communication dated March 28, 2022 from S. Franke, Co-Chair, Urban Agriculture Steering Committee, with respect to these matters.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve the delegation request for L. Thorne, Urban Agriculture Steering Committee.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   Mayor Holder - UNESCO Designation - London is Canada’s ‘City of Music’

2022-04-19 PEC MS - UNESCO Designation - Canada

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to London’s UNESCO designation as Canada’s ‘City of Music’:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back, in a timely manner, on specific geographical borders for a Core Area Entertainment District, while also defining what such a District may constitute; and,

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on tangible actions to be taken for late spring, summer, and fall months to demonstrate how music, entertainment, and culture can aid in fueling our community’s ongoing economic and social recovery; it being noted that actions may include, but should not be limited to, pursuing additional supportive investments from federal and provincial government partners.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:50 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 (3 hours, 57 minutes)

Welcome, everyone, to the eighth 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.

Before I move on, I’d like to welcome all committee members. The mayor will not be attending this meeting but I want to welcome Deputy Mayor Morgan to our meeting. Moving on to the agenda, disclosure is a peculiar interest. See none.

Moving on to the consent items. We have a number of consent items. A report from TFAAC. A number of holding provisions as well as one-year extension.

And the parking standards review information report and bill 13 information report to be received and for circulation. Any items to be pulled by committee members? See none. So I am looking for a mover to approve the consent items.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Any comments? Councillor Lehman. Oh, sorry, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, this question for our staff is actually going to relate to two items on the agenda and just the nature of how the agenda came together for this meeting, they’re kind of interwoven. So through you, we have been 2.2, the bill 13 information report, which is helpful in knowing where the province seems to be taking us on things. And 2.3, the parking standards review information report.

And I noted in the reports around bill 13 that there were some recommendations about some delegated authorities, one of which might delegate temporary use renewals to staff. And then when it comes to the parking standards review, obviously we’ve had a number of surface parking lots that have had extensions to their temporary use over time. One of the things that stands out for me though, in comments to the parking standards review is that surface parking lots where they’re occurring, the encouragement from some folks in the community about having rain gardens or other green spaces breaking up so that we don’t have just one flat monotonous block of asphalt. So with the potential, whether for council or if authority is delegated later to staff, when temporary use has come up, has any thought been given in the parking standards review to requiring new standards to be implemented on sites in order for temporary use to continue?

For example, like the rain garden opportunities or landscaping features around parking lots. So that as we move potentially to not having minimum parking standards anymore that we’re also looking at how parking is a little more integrated into the environment and the character of the neighborhood and a little less that monoculture asphalt block. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. And I can understand why that relates to 2.2 as well because it’s that delegation authority as well to allow for how we proceed.

I wonder if I can go to staff for their comments. Through the chair, this is Justin Adema. So with regards to the parking study, really what we’re looking at right now is the table in the zoning bylaw that assigns the minimum requirements to the variety of permitted uses and establishes what those minimum requirements would be. This is also part of the broader rethink zoning process that we’ve initiated which looks at the zoning bylaw from a much more comprehensive perspective and is actually the process through which we’ll develop an entirely new bylaw to implement the London plan.

So part of that process is looking at how we implement a lot of the London plan objectives around use intensity and form and balancing that in our approach to zoning. Currently the zoning bylaw is very much focused on land use with consideration of intensity but not a lot of regard for how to implement or achieve the built form that the London plan directs in its policies. So it is a good question and something that’s very much on our radar. I think it’s probably more a part of that broader discussion when we get into those specific design elements.

So at this stage for this review, the focus is on the numbers, sort of the numerical minimum parking requirement based on the permitted use, but that broader discussion around form will be considered but I think requires a bit more work and will be part of the broader rethink zoning review. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate that update from our staff and I would say that it’s a great opportunity I think for us to look at how, because parking will continue to be required but how it’s integrated a little better into the fabric and feel of a neighbourhood.

So I’m glad that’s going to be part of the rethink zoning process. I will say that when it comes to the parking standards, I’m very, very hopeful that we may be moving to some sort of hybrid or open parking standards rather than parking minimums. I know that I see in many areas large parking lots that aside from perhaps around Christmas sit unused and are at significantly less than sometimes even 50% capacity and that space that really to me doesn’t make the best use of our land. So I’m encouraged with the information that was in the parking standards review.

I’m looking forward to the public feedback on that, but I will say after my preliminary read, I’m very supportive of moving towards an open parking standard. I’d like to go to committee members first before I go to Councillor Van Halst, I see his hand up. Any other comments from committee members? Councillor Van Halst.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be at your committee. Thanks for the work to staff. I see there’s some nice infill happening in the consent agenda.

I’m quite pleased with the bill 13 information report, allows us to move the holding symbols. And I see there’s a couple of those in here now in the consent agenda. So obviously that those kinds of things could happen quicker. I wanted to ask about the minor zone changes that were allowed.

What kinds of things could happen in terms of a minor zone change? And I also wanted to refer to the committee adjustment and ask if there’s any parts of what they do that could be sped up through this delegation process. Councillor Van Halst, you have two questions there. Can I go with the first one about questions around minor zone changes first?

Sure, so what kinds of minor zone changing could we have if they’re not just dealing with the temporary permissions and the holding provisions? Sure, for the chair, it’s just an item again. So in the report, we included an appendix that identifies draft policies which are for circulation and will be brought back to a future meeting. But in those draft policies, we identified four types of minors owning by law amendment where this delegated approval authority could apply.

So that includes the removal of a holding symbol where the provision has been met, the renewal of an existing temporary use provision, except where that temporary use includes a surface commercial parking lot in the downtown place type. The third is the correcting of minor errors and emissions and fourth is housekeeping updates to reflect changes to job titles, city departments, external agencies and organizations or other policy documents and legislation. With regard to minor variances, that minor variance process would remain. So this doesn’t impact what would go through the minor variance process.

That would still go to the committee of adjustment and require public notice and a public meeting. It would just be these specifically defined types of minor zoning by law amendments that could be delegated to staff as the approval authority. Okay, thank you, that’s a fine response and makes a lot of sense. I was just concerned that there might be something else we missed or that I wasn’t understanding there that was possible.

That’s great. I’m also happy like Councillor Lewis to see that we might be moving towards some open system for the parking. What I wanted to ask was when, if something comes forward and we’re not happy with the amount of parking, what would the process be like there? It’s only happened very rarely but I do remember occasion or two where I’ve looked at the amount of parking and thought that’s just, it’s not reasonable for the application.

So what might happen in those instances and how would Council respond? Through the chair again, so it’s just an item again. So the draft parking policies that are being presented here, again for circulation include minimum requirements. So if a proposal came in below the new minimum requirements, if that’s the final recommendation, there would still be either a zoning by-law amendment or minor variance required.

If the concern would be that there’s not enough parking provided but they are above the minimum requirement or there is no minimum requirement in that area, then it would not be a zoning issue, possibly something to discuss through another process with the applicant but they would not be a zoning requirement to enforce to ensure any certain number of parking spaces are provided. Okay, so perhaps you could describe how we might resolve, let’s say an instance where it seemed like more parking was appropriate or needed, how would we negotiate that with a developer? So part of this amendment puts the owners on the developer to determine if there’s an open option that’s decided upon, it would be on the developer or the business owner to determine what level of parking is required and to implement that because there wouldn’t be a zoning requirement, it wouldn’t be part of our commenting on the amount of parking as long as they complied with the by-law. Absolutely, Van Hose.

Right, well, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess we have to rely very heavily on the applicants in that case. Is there, I wondered if there was room for comment, so anyway, there seems like a little red flag there for me, but I’ll turn the mic back to you and the committee, thanks. Thank you very much, Councillor Van Hose, for your comments, I’d like to go to Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Adema. A few comments, first, with respect to the parking standards. I’m not sure if this delves into site plan stuff or if it’s opportunities here.

First, when we take a look at some of those other municipalities, Toronto Calgary and Edmonton, we’ve basically moved to remove a lot of those of those parking standards. We’re moving to a hybrid option, or it’s one of the options in front of us. Is there an opportunity here to look for parking maximums rather than talking about minimums? I think move towards reducing those minimums is quite appropriate, but if we’re doing this in the vein of climate emergency response and in terms of arable land and how we use it best, parking maximums might be an opportunity for us here as well.

Mr. Adema. Through the chair, so parking maximums are certainly one of the options that we’ve looked at and has been on the table. So we presented a background information report in the fall, I believe it was in November.

And that was one of the options that had been discussed that one of the comments we heard at that time was that we needed to be very cautious around potential impacts on local business. And through our analysis, one of the findings has been that there’s more potential for business impacts when we start talking about parking maximums. And so in order to go down that road, we wanted to have a very comprehensive set of data to work with considering the local context and all that. And with that understanding, what we found was that given what the past two years have looked like with COVID and the impacts of that on travel patterns and behaviors, we didn’t feel that collecting data at this time would be necessarily applicable in the not-to-distant future.

So it is still something we have available specifically in key areas such as around the planned rapid transit network. But we felt that at this time, we didn’t want to bring that forward until we were able to collect that more robust data set in order to inform the recommendations. So in the future, when we developed the rethinking zoning by-law, it may be something that we consider, but at this time, and for the amendments that we’re considering to the current zoning by-law, we decided not to pursue that. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you to I can appreciate the rationale.

I’m not sure I necessarily agree with it. I think as it stands right now, we have minimum parking requirements and people can get leave to those parking requirements by showing us an argument that states that in these circumstances, it might make sense to forego those minimums and go lower than that. And I would say that that argument should apply the other way, that people should have to make an argument to put forward to state that they need more parking than what the maximum would indicate. And they could do that.

But I think it would make sense that one of the things that we would look for is what are the steps that those property owners have taken in order to address some of those challenges that might evolve in terms of getting people to their locations outside of single-occupant vehicles. So have they done their best to make their location pedestrian-friendly, cycling-friendly, transit-friendly, and have they exhausted all of those options, and they still need more parking, in which case the council or staff could consider making recommendations to expand the maximum, beyond the maximum that would sit there. Is that something that was part of the conversation? Because I think given the lens of everything that we’re trying to accomplish, I think the only thing needs to be on the business owners to show us why they need more.

Is that a comment, Councillor Turner? No, that was a question. Was that part of the discussion? And is that something that could be feasible?

Through the Chair, it was something we considered earlier on, but again, our finding was that, you know, in taking into account some of those preliminary comments was to not move forward with that at this time. Certainly, we’re happy to incorporate that again and consider that for the final version. Yeah, thank you. And I think that will be really important.

At this point, we’re looking to circulate these things. It was something I would like to see some very purposeful comment on when the standards come back for approval and for our consideration as well. The second two, I think, might have something to do with site plan, but maybe there’s an opportunity here as well. The first is with respect to EV charging as a proportion of the number of spots allocated.

There would be an opportunity to say that a certain percentage of spots within a development would need to be, well, at first, we have accessible parking. Could we also do the same and create that standard for EV charging stations as well? And the third would be parking shade requirements in terms of being able to, instead of just have mass sprawling surface parking lots have a requirement to have a certain proportion of those lots shaded, why they’re through shade trees or otherwise. Again, Mr.

Adema, any comments? Through the chair, thank you. Councilor, for those suggestions and we’ll incorporate that into the next phase of our review. Thank you, Councilor Turner.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, these are our great opportunities. If we’ve declared the climate emergency and you’ve got the climate emergency tool kit and then we’ve got a lens through which we’re doing this, this is a great opportunity to do that. Beyond just talking about parking minimums, there’s so many things that we can do from parking and I think we need to be able to approach it from all angles.

So I appreciate the consideration. And then the second, if I might, Madam Chair, just switch lanes to the bill 13 questions. I’m curious about specifically with temporary use. We’ve had a number of these temporary uses that just seem to no longer be temporary use, just renewals and perpetual.

What criteria and lens will staff, are staff considering looking at for that delegated authority to determine whether it actually is in fact a temporary use or whether that temporary use is ended? Yeah, thank you for that question. If I can go to staff for their comments around the temporary use, constitutes temporary use and how we look at the criteria and uses? Through the Chair.

So the proposed amendment doesn’t incorporate any new criteria at this point, but it would still be subject to the policies of the London Plan, which are in force and provides direction for the reviews. I’ve gotten those in the order section. That seems I have no standing balance. I think there’s some mic on.

I hate the full. Just one moment, Mr. Adema. Okay, I think we’re good to go.

Thank you. Currently, when these come forward to Council, Council considers them and in some circumstances, it extends them and in some circumstances doesn’t. Sometimes they’re in line with the recommendations, sometimes they’re not from staff. So I think this one’s a little bit more of a tricky one, rather the delegation of lifting of, minor of holding provisions and things like that.

I think those make sense. I see there being some political interest, certainly, in the temporary provisions. So that one, I’m a little more reticent to delegate. Again, this is a document for circulation and consideration, I believe.

So I’ll save my comments until later, but I think if this is being circulated for comment, again, when the report comes back, I would like to see some consideration from staff as to what criteria they would consider for the extension or removal of temporary provisions. Thank you. Councillor Van Halst, do you have a comment or a question? I’m going back to that.

Yes, thank you Madam Chair. And my gratitude for Councillor Turner, looking to see that the parking policy is very robust. My question is about too much parking. I have seen instances where, obviously, they’re turned out to be not enough parking.

How often does it happen that we think they’re, they end up with too much parking? So that is a question on what determines, who determines too much parking? Yeah, I guess it’s kind of an anecdotal thing where we look at various developments and decide, hey, here’s an example where too much was parking. Obviously, parking, there’s a cost to parking.

And so that also creates a maximum. And so there’s some other maximums that happen automatically. But I’m wondering if it seems it’s a common thing that too much parking may happen on development. The question is, if there’s too much parking available in the city?

Is it common to see a development that resulted in too much parking? Thank you. If I can go to staff? Do you want to share?

Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Acastar. Do you want to share it through you? I would like to answer that questions in two ways.

One is to look at the minor variances that the city of London receives. And generally, I don’t have the exact numbers, but generally those apply to parking reductions, not increases of parking. So there is, there are quite a lot of minor variances that look to decrease the amount of parking below the minimum required on-site parking. And secondly, and I fully admit that this is not a representative survey, but there was the opportunity for the public to comment, to fill in a survey on the Gannenwald website.

And when asked, I often see empty or mostly empty parking lots around London. 37% of the respondents, which were approximately 300 people agreed to another 21%. So much agreed and only 18% somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed. So again, I’m well aware that that is not representative for the whole city, but that is an example of, that the people who were interested in this parking standard review project generally leaned, I would say three to one, that they often see a lot of empty spaces.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, yep. Yes, I’m very grateful our staff were able to quickly come up with some data to provide an answer for my questions.

So thank you. Thank you. I’d like to go to Councillor Helmer. Thank you.

Just on the parking report, glad to see it going out to be circulated. I think under the indicators for success, as mentioned in the report earlier on, parking requirements can increase the cost of housing substantially, especially in fill housing. Designed to be a bit more affordable. And I think that’s one of the indicators to success we really need to include is something about affordability and how requiring less in the way of parking is going to reduce the overall cost of constructing new housing, especially in fill projects.

So, I know this is just going out for comments but I want to embrace that now, ‘cause it’s mentioned in the report how it can really significantly increase like 12%, 25% depending on how much parking is required at the cost of urban in fill housing. And I think that’s one of the key things that is reducing the parking requirement is not just the win for mobility and environmental reasons but also for overall affordability of new housing. Thank you, Councillor Helmer, for those comments. Are there any other comments from committee?

I see none, the committee will allow me just to make a brief comment on the consent items in particular the parking standards. I really appreciate the questions and comments coming out. I think it’s important that as a committee, we provide comments to staff as we send this out for circulation. I do have just a follow-up question on, it’s sort of related to a number of questions that we’re already asked but really as we look at standards, we have two options that are available to us.

Ultimately is the final decision with Council still as to how many parking spaces we allow through. The application process. Just want to get verification on that. Through the chair, so Council would set the requirement in the zoning by-law and has the ability to maintain or amend those requirements.

And so as long as it’s within that framework, Council has the ability to make that decision. If the amendment that we’re discussing today were to move to an open option, it would put that on us on the developer or business owner or property owner to determine how much parking is required. Thank you for that clarification. And look forward to the report coming back to committee here.

I just would like to also add, it’s good to see the bicycle parking requirements going up from seven to 10. I know you looked at other cities. We’ll be interesting to see as we firm up those numbers, how in line we are with other cities, but it’s good to see that increase as we look through it through that climate change lens. And also the affordable housing lens as well.

Really important reports going out for circulation. Thank you committee members for your comments. And with that, we can go and vote. We’ll send the vote.

The motion carries six to zero. One to schedule items. Our first one is 3.1, a public participation, a meeting for 520 Sarnia Road, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councilor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier, closing the vote.

The motion carries six to zero. That, and I would like to let committee members know there is a revised staff report and recommendation, as well as a by-law. And with that, I would like to go to staff. Thank you, Madam Chair, just to note about the amended by-law.

There was just a couple of technical changes with regards to the height. It remains at eight stories. It was just a technical issue with 27 to 29 within the zoning by-law itself. And then I’ve highlighted the other portion, which is in the bonus zone with regards to the front yard setback of 0.5, which was also circulated through the public notification.

So it was just a technical error. Moving forward, I’m going to cut this presentation down, ‘cause I know we’re already running behind and I don’t see a lot of the members of the public here, so I’m going to cut it down. So to begin, first of all, thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to provide this presentation. It’s Elena Riley, Senior Planner and Current Planning.

Looking at slide one. First of all, you can find this presentation in the added agenda. Slide one, this is for an official plan in Zoning by-law amendment application, pertaining to the subject property located at 520 Sarnia Road. We move to slide two.

The subject site is comprised of one irregular shaped lot, which is located on the south side of Sarnia Road. At the southeast corner intersection of Sarnia Road and Chapman Court. Currently, the site contains a one story multi-tended commercial building has a frontage of 148 meters on Sarnia Road. And an area of approximately 0.77 hectares.

Surrounding uses consist of single detached across Sarnia to the north. We have some commercial across Sarnia as well. To the east, there’s townhouses along with townhouses to the south and apartment building. And to the west, we have more commercial.

The requested amendments, sorry, slide three, looking at the proposed development. The requested amendments are to facilitate the development of an eight story apartment building with a total of 129 residential units with a density of 168 units per hectare without a commercial component on the ground floor. The applicant also was seeking a bonus zone to implement the proposed development with special provisions that would identify Sarnia Road frontage as the front lot line. Are reduced interior side yard setback of 7.5.

Reduced parking rate of 0.78 spaces, whereas one is required. We’re also looking through the bonus zoning to permit the eight stories, the 29 meters in height, and 168 units per hectare. The implementation of the bonus zone is in exchange for facility services and matters provided by the applicant, including exceptional building design and affordable housing. Looking at the affordable housing component, it would include two bachelor units with rents not exceeding 80% of the average market rent for a 50 year time period.

Also within the zoning bylaw, you’ll notice that there is a base special provision for the R9 zone, case the applicant does not wish to proceed with the bonus zoning. And that’s to allow the apartment building use and reduced minimum front yard of one and height of four stories. So looking further, I want to note that there also are requested amendments to the London plan and the 1989 official plan. For the London plan, we’re looking at a specific area policy to permit the building height of eight stories and to align with this policy context with the 1989 official plan policies.

We’re looking at a special policy to allow the proposed apartment building within the community commercial node without commercial on the ground floor and also noting that it’s eight stories with a density of 168 units per hectare. Moving on to slide four, this just shows the rules developments further and it shows the proposed eight story, 129 unit apartment building. And also I wanted to make note there are a hundred surface parking spaces, surface spaces proposed. Moving on to slide five, this is where I’m going to cut things down to the policy context.

It is within a neighborhood’s place type along in Civic Boulevard, apartment buildings with bonusing up to six stories are allowed under the London plan. Making note, very important to note that there are no height and density permissions for the community commercial node. However, for residential, we refer to the multifamily high and where this typically allows 150 out of, 150 units per hectare outside of central London. And as discussed, the applicant has applied to increase the density through the bonusing provisions as discussed earlier.

So I’m just moving on to slide six, neighborhood concerns. We did receive some neighborhood concerns. I do wanna make note that the applicant did host a community information meeting, which I think was a great success to help the public understand and discuss all of their concerns. There is a recommendation for site plan to consider a lot of these concerns through the review.

I do wanna just briefly touch note on the parking reduction. They have included in the application, as mentioned, to reduce the parking. And planning staff are of the opinion that the reduced parking rate is a common and acceptable modern standard for sites on these types of streets, which is a Cerny Road is a Civic Boulevard, quite a busy street for lanes. And so therefore they are recommending, we are recommending a reduction.

We also wanna note that the development is also, along with being located along a higher order road, there’s a lot of transit opportunity in the area and there’s a lot of transit stops. I just wanted to make mention of that. So therefore, slide seven, recommendation, as such, after the review, the recommended amendments are consistent with the provincial policy statement. They conform to the in-force policies of the London plan, including but not limited to key directions in the neighborhoods place type.

And further, the recommended amendment is in conformity with the in-force policies of the ‘89 plan, not limited to the multifamily high density. These amendments will facilitate the development of an underutilized sites within the built area boundary and the primary transit area with a land use intensity and form that are appropriate for the site through the use of bony zoning. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Riley. Any technical questions? Councillor Hillier. Yes, did I hear correctly, there will not be a commercial component on the ground floor of this, but they’re asking for the additional stories that would normally be accompanied with that?

For you, Madam Chair. So in the 1989 official plan, it’s in a community commercial node. And that designation requires commercial on the ground floor if it’s with a mixed use building or regardless. And they applied to remove this commercial component through a spite site-specific policy.

And within the London plan, this is not required. You can have apartment buildings as of right. So I just wanted to make note this is in the 1989 official plan. That’s why they’re requesting this special policy to construct or develop an apartment building without commercial on the ground floor.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification as well. Moving on to the applicant. Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

It’s Matt Campbell with Zalen Capriamo here. Can you hear me correctly? Yes, I can. Mr.

Campbell, please proceed. You have up to five minutes. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We’re very excited to bring this application before a committee today. This has been in the order of three years in the making. There’s been a lot of planning that has gone into this site. And as Ms.

Riley mentioned, this is an older commercial site that has really outlived its life. It’s not a viable commercial site anymore. So we have a client that has a proven track record of developing in London. And for an example of the types of buildings that this particular developer builds, you can go just up Wonderland Road to just behind the Sherwood Forest Mall.

And a recent development there, dubbed the W, is one of their developments. And that’s currently occupied right now. So what we’re proposing here, as Ms. Riley mentioned, is an eight story apartment building.

We do need the policy changes that we’re requesting in the London plan. And we believe that this site in this particular development is sufficiently unique to consider a special policy, recognizing that the London plan is coming into effect more and more every day. And this, the policy that we’re looking here is really intended to execute a great development that’s going to fit into this community and really be a great asset. Not only just for the city, for the broader commercial community to the south, the residential area, as well as the city as a whole.

We’re very excited to bring this forward. I’m happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. And we did note that we did put together that neighborhood meeting that was February 9th. There was a good response for that.

And we’re also open to answering any questions that the public may have at this time. And I’d also like to take the opportunity to thank staff. I know that the city of London staff are under tremendous workload right now. And we do appreciate them giving this application their full attention.

We’ve been working well with staff throughout the application process. So again, happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. And we do have a representative from the ownership group that may be able to assist with any questions as well. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I’d like to move on now to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this application.

Hi, I have a question. My name is Dimitri Radakovich. I’m one of the owners in the neighboring building. Yes, Mr.

Radakovich. If you, I just want to welcome you to the planning and environment committee meeting. You have up to five minutes. You can state your address if you wish.

We do have your name and please proceed. Sure, thank you. I will be very brief and thanks for opportunity to speak here. As I mentioned, I’m a new owner at 30 Chapman, which is a neighboring building to this proposed development.

And I’m not, I don’t live at the site, my tenant does. And I was not aware of this neighborhood meeting that happened on February 9th. I have pulled another couple of owners and a couple of tenants that I’m aware of. And they also were not aware of this neighborhood meeting that happened on February 9th.

So I would like to inquire about a little bit more information about it. And if there were any meeting minutes documented as, you know, due to this concern that I have that not everybody was involved. And I’m not sure what was all shared and committed to at this time. Thank you, Mr.

Radakovich. We will answer that question once we finish the public participation meeting. Thank you. Thank you, just moving on.

If there’s anyone else that would like to speak to this application, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone that would like to speak to this application, please come forward. I see and hear none.

I’d like to go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis. We can proceed to vote. In the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Before I proceed to the committee members, I would like to go to staff to see if they can respond to the notices that were sent out, how and when regarding the open house public meeting and any comments from that meeting. I wonder if I can go to staff first for the notices process of sending notices. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. So this was a developer-led meeting.

These community meetings are often created by the developer. They do reach out to staff for, to get the labels for the surrounding area. So we create occupant labels. And that’s probably why Dimitri wasn’t sent a notice is because he is, because they were occupant labels.

And that’s basically the process from our end as we just assist the developers with the labels. I don’t know if Matt wants to expand further on what he sent out and how they were sent out where they emailed. And if he has any copies of the minutes as well, ‘cause I think that’s Dimitri was asking for those. Hopefully that helps someone.

Thank you, Ms. Riley. I would like to go to Mr. Campbell if you could just comment on the process that you undertook on sending out notices as well as commenting on the open house.

Absolutely, thanks very much, Madam Chair. And thanks to Dimitri for the question. So what we typically do in these open house situations is we request the same notification radius that an application would be subject to. In this case, it’s a 120 meter radius around the subject lands.

And so city staff use their GIS systems to put together a map that shows that radius and capture any properties in that area. City staff and generate a spreadsheet of mailing labels for us. And in this particular instance, I believe we had somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 occupant addresses. So we sent a plus or minus 500 notices of this open house to area residents.

We did receive a fairly good response. There were somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 20 responses, which given that mail out, that’s reasonably high. So we had the meeting over Zoom on February 9th. The minutes were not taken, however, notes were certainly taken during the meeting.

And we use those internally to gauge whether any modifications to the development are warranted and assist in any particular changes that are needed. And for instance, occasionally with these types of neighborhood open houses, there are issues that are brought to our attention that we didn’t know about. So they’re certainly beneficial. And when those, when changes are warranted, we certainly implement them.

In this particular case, there were more questions than issues that were raised, and we did our best to answer those questions. It’s unfortunate that the Metri wasn’t aware of that. And as Ms. Riley mentioned, that may have been a product of the fact that the mailers go out, and it’s a physical piece of mail that goes out.

It goes to the occupant of whichever unit is intended for. And if the unit is owned by someone else and there’s a tenant there, the tenant would get the notice, or should get the notice, and the landlord may not get it. So I think that’s what may have happened in this situation. Thank you, Mr.

Campbell, for those comments. I’d like to now go to the committee. Councillor Lehman. Thank you.

I was at that committee information meeting, and there are a couple of concerns that I want to touch on here. Regard to the parking spaces with 100 spaces for 129 units is concerned, especially from those that live on Chapman Court that residents that don’t have a parking space will use the street. I’d like to ask through you, Chair, to the developer, I know at their development at W on Sherwood Forest Square, they had a shuttle to the university in back. Are they planning for a similar service at this development?

Mr. Campbell. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Lehman. In conversations with the developer and the ownership group, and we have one of them available to confirm what I’m about to say, you’ve correctly identified that yes, there is a shuttle that operates at the W, and that a similar shuttle service is planned for this building.

However, we did not factor that shuttle service into our justification for parking reduction, but rather, the parking reduction is based on the fact that this particular building is located along at the intersection of two major arterial roads. It’s within walking and cycling distance to amenities and the university. And by the fact that we’re reducing parking, and there was a good conversation about parking rates right before this item that we may want to remind ourselves of, is that the traffic volumes that would be generated from this development are less than what would otherwise be generated at a utilized commercial development on the site or an apartment building that provided more parking in of itself. By providing less parking, we’re reducing those traffic movements and encouraging active transportation and transit usage.

We do have Melissa McGregor here, and she’s turned on her video and maybe I can ask Melissa if she wants to add to that at all. Yes, thanks Matt, to you too. One other item that we did also discuss early in the process is that our property management will also make sure that there are bus and transit schedules available to the tenants, whether those are posted through an online forum or in the lobby, they will be available and encouraged as well. But yes, we will have the shuttle, but as Matt said, that wasn’t included in the determination of the quantity of parking spaces available.

Thank you, Councillor Lam. Thank you. The other concern, like this development is, we’ll be exiting onto Chapman Court, which is just off Sarnia Road. Chapman Court provides access to medium and high density.

There’s concerns brought up at the Community Information Meeting, both residents trying to get into Chapman that are turning left, they’re heading westbound on Sarnia and turning left enough to wait for traffic on Sarnia for a spot to get into Chapman. Right now there’s a pedestrian crosswalk there, but no traffic lights. Would city staff consider putting in a traffic light to allow access into Chapman after, assuming there’s a hundred more cars now looking to get in, making that left-hand turn during a day to allow folks that live on Chapman access if they’re traveling westerly on Sarnia. Thank you, go to Mr.

Riley. Through the chair, it’s Mike Corby here, I can answer that for. So basically we could look at the traffic levels once those developments in place, and if it’s warranted that the levels require a traffic light, it’s something we would consider at that time, but at this point it’s just based on traffic volumes and based on the initial analysis, they wouldn’t be required at this date. Councillor Layman.

Thank you. I’m glad to hear that we’ll just keep an eye on it and that possibility exists to address all its concerns. This is a good development. It’s all higher density and a few more stories, but you know what, it fronts on the Sarnia, which is a major artery.

I always look at what’s behind and it’s medium and high density, so it fits the neighborhood. I like the look of the building, it’s a very prominent place, and the developers presented a really good-looking structure here and I know what they did with the W, was a good development as well, and they carried through with their promises on that, so I encourage my fellow colleagues to approve this. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Councillor Turner.

Thanks, Madam Chair. A quick question about the calculation for the affordable housing. Last meeting we looked at a building that went from four to six stories, so I saw a 50% lift. In this case, we’re seeing 100% lift and it’s got half as much affordable housing.

I know that it’s going to be hard for us to do a relative comparisons, but when we take a look at this, all the reasons Mr. Campbell identified for why parking might not be as much of an issue, are also the reasons why we want to see a more affordable housing access to schools, access to transit, access to commercial notes. It makes a lot of sense here, so two units seems rather meager, considering the amount of lift associated with this increase above the recommended floor. Yeah, if I could go to city staff regarding the lift and the three units of affordable housing.

Through you, Madam Chair, there were discussions with the Housing Development Corporation with Brian and Steve, I believe a few months ago before staff changes. And I just want to note that this was based on density calculations. The lift was based on density calculations and therefore the extra 18 units were derived at that. And their discussions brought, I guess, forward the two that they proposed and it’s also recommended by HDC.

So hopefully that clarifies your question. Yeah, if I might screw you, Madam Chair, this is a rather appropriate to Mr. Campbell. Do we know what the HDC contribution is to the affordable housing offset?

Campbell. Sorry, a three, Madam Chair to Councilor Turner. I just would like to respond just to the first question first. And Ms.

Riley was correct in that the calculation was based on the 1989 plan. And when we look at the policies that apply there, the base density that we have to work with is 150 units per hectare. And this development proposes an additional 18 units per hectare. It’s not an additional 18 units, but it’s an additional 18 units per hectare.

It’s actually 14 units. So in preparing our calculations, we looked at 10% of what that 14 unit uplift is, which is 1.4 units, then rounded that up to an additional two units. And that was based on standard practice at the time that we did this calculation. And that was certainly vetted through HDC.

So your second question, if there’s a contribution from HDC, I don’t believe that there is any contribution from HDC that’s going towards this. This is entirely going, this is at the developer’s dime. This is as a condition of bonus zoning. And we’re well aware of what the requirements from HDC are, and we’re certainly agreeable to implementing them into this development.

But there certainly isn’t any contribution from HDC to this development, if that’s what the question is. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Campbell. And through you, Madam Chair, I think Mr.

Barron has hand up, so. Yes, if I could go to Mr. Barrett. Thank you, through the chair, actually, I was just going to provide the same comment that Mr.

Campbell did. This was based on the London plan, densities outside of central London at 150 units per actor. So the calculations, Mr. Campbell said, resulted in an increase that was 14 units between the 150 units per hectare and the 168 units per hectare that is being recommended in this application.

So that was rounded up with respect to HDC contributions again. Mr. Campbell correctly said that it’s not direct HDC contributions. In fact, the conditions are the conditions that HDC has provided, which are, as again, Mr.

Campbell noted, the term of the agreement, the level of affordability and the fact that the tenant placement, it would be through a tenant placement agreement with the HDC. So in fact, the what all user quotes here have become sort of standard conditions associated with bonusing are the same conditions that are recommended here as part of this application. Council Chair. Thank you, Mr.

Barrett, Chair, Madam Chair. I think part of the where we see like about a 10% lift in terms of density is partly a function of the amount of the footprint of this parcel that the building is proposed to take up. It’s not a large amount and the rest of it is kind of surface parking as it goes around as compared to the Fanshawe Park Road, which had a fairly significant amount of the parcel that’s taken up. It’s interesting to listen to kind of the hybrid between the official plan ‘89 and the London plan, because we’ll use the density calculations on the London plan, but we’re gonna take a look at the building heights and bonusing the provisions of the ‘89 plan.

I think we’ll still continue to be in a bit of a quagmire through this. So notwithstanding my comments on the bonusing, I think it’s an appropriate building. I think it looks well designed. It looks like it’s well-sighted.

It’s on two major corridors. It’s close to commercial. It’s close to transit. It’s close to university.

I think there’s a lot of great opportunities with it and I’m supportive of it. However, I’d like us to get to a place where we can finalize our policies for consistency because to go from six to eight is a 50% jump above what the recommended bonusing would be for height. And I appreciate the clarification between the difference between height and density in terms of the bonusing and how we move around those things. So I’m supportive of the application.

I hope that we can find some ground at some point when the London plan is finalized, that we can make decisions consistent with the plans. And that’s why I’m concerned right now is it’s not consistent with the plan. I do think it’s appropriate for the height in this neighborhood, in this area. And I haven’t heard huge concerns about it as well.

So I think that’s helpful too. I’m happy to hear the other work councilor support as well. Thank you for those comments, councilor Turner. Any other comments from the committee?

I see none if the committee will allow me just to make a brief comment. I wanna thank the public for coming out and bringing to our attention the importance of how we share notices. And as we build apartment buildings like this one and how we communicate to the public, I think there should be some greater consideration being given not only by city staff, but by anyone holding an open house, how we can provide those notices. I know there are opportunities in the lobbies where notices can be put up.

I know that goes to further steps, but it is important as we build these apartment buildings. I’m supportive of this application. It’s something that I think is really important and it is close to a lot of amenities as well as Western lots of walking opportunities. And also young families, just not students, but young families being able to live in this area.

I think is also important. So with that, I would like to remind committee members that the recommendation, there is a by-law amendment as to the measurement of 29.0 meters and amendment front yard at depth of 0.5 meters. With that, I’d like a motion to approve the recommendation. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

I see no other comments. We can proceed to vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Onto our second public participation meeting, 3.2551, 555 Waterloo Street.

If I can have someone open the public participation meeting, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Close in the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. And with that, I’d like to go to staff for a short verbal. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is Melanie Bivian, site development planner. Before jumping into a brief overview of the application, I just wanted to know an error in the by-law presented in the report. The zone requested is the residential R8, special provision zone, the R8-4 zone, and not the holding residential R5 zone as noted in staff’s report. So I do apologize in advance for any confusion.

This may have caused. So the zoning by-law amendment application pertaining to the property municipally addresses 551 to 555 Waterloo Street. So the applicant here is requesting to amend the zone on site to facilitate a three-story rear addition to the existing building, thereby increasing the total number of dwelling units from eight units to 10 units, and to permit home occupations within dwelling units in the apartment building. Special provisions are requested to regulate a minimum front yard depth, and a minimum north interior side yard depth to recognize existing conditions, as well as a south interior side yard depth, establishing a maximum gross floor area, and establishing a maximum height for the proposed addition.

A special provision is also requested to include permitting the home occupations within dwelling units and apartment buildings to maximum sizes there. It is worth noting that the existing buildings are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, as they’re located within the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District. It is noted that a heritage impact assessment was received and reviewed by staff, and the London Advisory Committee on Heritage. Comments received from LAHCH advised that it is satisfied with the research assessment and conclusions of the heritage impact assessment and is in support of the development.

As such, staff is recommending approval of the requested amendment to rezone the subject land to residential RE and special provision zone. The proposed development is consistent with the provincial policy statement and conforms to the enforced policies of the London Plan and 1989 Official Plan. The recommended amendment is also consistent with the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District. Thank you, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Vivian. Any technical questions? I see none.

I’d like to move to the applicant’s agent. Good evening, mountain trekking. Yes, good evening. I know the applicant is here, along with other members.

I assume you are going to be speaking of two five minutes behalf of the applicant. Yes, my name is Nick Dajak. I am the planning consultant and agent representing the owner, which is the apartment shop. With me as well as, I believe, Dave Russell from the apartment shop and Lisa Esnak from A-Link Architecture.

I just wanted to say that this is another project that SPM is proud to be a part of. As well aware, there’s a balance data between adding density to our mature neighborhoods and without like, adverse the impact of the adjacent neighbors. So this project is what I’d like to refer to as gentle density. Supposed amendment is seeking the addition of two units from eight to 10 units.

It ensures that the front facade of the heritage features viewed from the street are all maintained and keeps massing and scale of the proposed, of the buildings consistent with the existing streetscape. So all the new development is essentially kept toward the rear of the building and protects that the view of the conservation heritage area. So as Ms. Vivian mentioned, there are several requested state specific provisions and we believe this is minor, as you mentioned, they are primarily there to keep the existing conditions of the buildings to allow them to exist, as well as a couple of additional provisions to further restrict the zone to allow the subsequent applications for development and building permits to be compatible with the existing buildings and the neighboring lots.

So in my opinion, this is a great example of a proper infill within a mature neighborhood. So I hope committee is also in agreement. And again, myself, the owner and the tech team are here to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Dyak. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comment regarding this recommendation? We’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this application, please come forward.

I see none with that. I would like to go to committee to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries 60-0. I’d like to go to the committee for motion or comments.

We’re both. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask a little bit about the, make sure I use the words right to in-ground garbage collection points in ground waste and recycling containers.

We’re going to be adjacent to the city lane. Is there any kind of standard for separation distance of those? I know not a formal one, but consideration of what an appropriate separation distance is from a dwelling unit. I do know that some of them can be rather smelly, depending on what’s put in them.

And we faced this with an earlier application a couple of years ago. I just want to make sure they’re in the right place. Through you, Madam Chair. From what I’m aware of, there’s no setback regulations required for the in-ground waste containers.

Typically, these ones are to help mitigate some of that smell that you can get. These are going to be private collection as well. And through the process, we did work closely with the applicant to find an appropriate spot for the location of them, as well as accessibility purposes for picking up the garbage. Councillor Turner.

Thank you. As for you, Madam Chair, do we know what the collection frequency will be? Through you, Madam Chair. I don’t have the answer to that.

I don’t know if the applicant would. Yes. Yes. Go ahead, Mr.

Dyke. Thank you, Madam Chair. The collection, because it is private, we can establish that collection frequency. Likely it would be weekly or would match the city’s collection sequence.

There is, I just do wanna note the owner does own lands directly south and uses a very similar collection bin and private pickup as well. So they are already using the system and would match the frequency so it’s done all at the same time. Councillor Turner. Okay, thank you.

I think that if we can just reflect that in the site plan, opportunities just to make sure that order mitigation opportunities are there. I recognize that this is there to address that. So I appreciate the work that staff have done and the responding to it. One of the things that we have noted from the public comments were concerns about the onsite garbage handling that currently exists with this property.

Hopefully this works to address that. One of the challenges with Molex is they can go a long time between collections depending on how full they get and to the more, I guess the fuller they get, the smellier they are. So I just wanted to check on the frequency for that reason. So if staff can just note that for the site plan considerations, I’d appreciate that.

Thank you for those comments. I’d like to put a committee for other comments or a motion. Councillor Lehman. We’re looking for a motion.

I’ll move, I’ll move the staff. Thank you, I’m looking for a seconder. Councillor Lewis. And I’d like to remind the committee that we are again changing our by-law and ending it to reflect the R8 that is in the recommendation.

So with that, please, we can proceed to vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Our next public participation meeting for the Toe Track and Pound Yard Zoning By-law Review. Looking to committee to open up the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Turner. Close in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. That we have an added presentation on this review. I’d like to go to staff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Chair indicated, the presentation is in the agenda package, but I can pull it up and go through it very quickly. Yeah, a quick verbal would be fine, thank you. This zoning review is occurring as a result of some business licensing issues we’ve had in the past.

We’re assisting compliance services and business licensing with this review. Zoning is involved, so this is something that planning typically deals with, so they ask for our assistance in doing this zoning by-law review. And the review is occurring essentially for two reasons. There’s new London Plan place type policies, particularly with regards to industrial uses, and also the recent introduction of business licenses for these uses.

In 2017, two additional licensing categories were added. And then in 2021, an additional two different business licenses were initiated for tow truck businesses and in-pound yard businesses. And part of the process for a business license application is a zoning by-law review. And it was found that going through this process that a lot of the existing sites, there’s 18 of them, were not zoned to allow either a tow truck business or an in-pound yard.

Because it was an existing business licensing situation, instead of asking each operator to apply for a zoning by-law amendment on each of the properties, the city initiated this zoning by-law review on their behalf. And in the interim, we issued conditional business licenses so the businesses could carry on until the review was done. So as I said on the new London Plan, and in previous official plans, we have a variety of different industrial place types and designations, one being heavy industrial, one being light industrial and commercial industrial. And the difference between them is the impacts that they create.

Heavy industrial tends to have the more unsightly uses. Light industrial is for cleaner industrial uses. And commercial industrial allows that mix of sort of light industrial uses and commercial uses. And a lot of the uses within these zones and place types are differentiated on the basis of impact, impact being noise, emissions, and also unsightliness.

And also secondly, on the amount of outdoor storage they’re allowed to have. If you look at the London Plan policies, there’s also policies in there regarding outdoor storage along highways 401 and 402. And that’s sort of an economic development concern about traffic going by these sites and creating a bad impression of London or sort of a not a very nice impression of London. So there are current zoning by-law regulations which apply to outdoor storage.

In summary, heavy industrial and general industrial allow more open storage than light industrial does. 75% in the former and 15% in the latter. There are existing setbacks from residential uses and other sensitive land uses already included in the zoning by-law and those will be maintained. So after the review, we actually held a meeting with the operators of the businesses and got their concerns.

And after our review and listening to their comments, we’ve made a number of changes to the zoning by-law. We’ve added new definitions. We’ve revised existing definitions. And we’ve also expanded the number of locations where you can have these uses.

One of the comments we heard of the community meeting was that there weren’t enough sites for these uses. So we’ve expanded the number of zones that you’re allowed to have these uses in from four up to 14 different zones. And that’s a differentiator between a tow truck business and an impound yard import. Impound yards are a little more sensitive about because of the amount of outdoor storage.

And also the London Plan policies which try and preclude these uses along major transportation corridors. So we’ve also made some changes to our site location regulations, precluding outdoor storage in front and exterior side yards. We’ve increased the amount of open storage, a lot of the light industrial zone from 15 to 25%. And we’ve also increased the amount of open storage allowed in the general and heavy industrial zones from 75 to 95%.

So as I said in summary, we’ve increased the number of zones where these uses are permitted from four to 14. And we’ve also looked at the existing sites which are out there. There’s 18 different sites. And there’s no site specific zoning by-laws required for these sites.

Most of the changes we made have accommodated most of the uses. There are four existing sites where A, they don’t conform to the zoning because they never had zoning for these sites before. So any uses would be legal nonconforming. And then we have two additional sites where the London Plan place type wouldn’t allow this use in the longterm.

So at some point, there may be some need for them to move elsewhere to a site that can accommodate them. But for all intents and purposes, we don’t need any site specific zoning on these sites to recognize them. And that’s our recommendation. If you have any comments or questions, I’d be happy to ask them.

Thank you, Mr. Parker. Any technical questions from committee? I see none moving on to the public.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this review? Is there someone in committee room five? If you, is there, we just need the microphone working. Welcome, sir.

Can you hear me? I’m unable to hear anyone in committee room five if we could just take a moment. Yes, I can hear you now. Welcome, sir, to the planning and environment committee meeting.

It’s a public participation. If you can state your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes, please proceed. My name’s Nick with M and K, Tongan Recovery. And 2680 Dundas is our location.

So they sent out an email last week with all the different changes that they’ve wanted to make and everything like that. And our site was one that they say cannot go on. And I’m just really confused by that because our yard, we conform to not going over the 25% or was 15% before. We have, we’re on Dundas Road, so highway two, but it looks clean from the outside.

We have banners up to kind of protect the view from the road as well. Just really confused. And there’s a salvage yard right next door to me. So I’m just really confused on how our site is not conforming to these changes.

Can we have your address, please? 2680 Dundas. This is the address of the site. Correct.

Thank you. Please proceed. Yeah, that’s it. Like I just really kind of baffled about how they’re saying that our site doesn’t conform to what they’re looking for.

And our site is cleaner than most accessible. We don’t exceed the percentages. There’s a lot of car dealers right by us that look more like a scrap yard than we do as an impound yard. Yeah, just really confused.

That’s why I came here to talk about that. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment? See none.

I will ask one more time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on the tow truck impound yard turning by law review is come forward. See none, I’ll go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Close and develop the motion carries six to zero.

Committee members, I will go to staff to help assist the public with the confusion about the address at 26th under street not being included in the site, allowing the site to be part of the review and including it. Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the next question as to why we never recognize that particular site. I went back through the zoning on the site and it’s never been zoned for an impound yard that site.

It wasn’t formally in a township of West Missouri and the industrial uses that were permitted didn’t include an impound yard. And this is one of the issues that came up to the licensing process is that at that time that property was never zoned for an impound yard. Now through the amendments that we’ve made we’ve allowed the tow truck business on the site but we haven’t zoned it to allow an impound yard because of its location on a major transportation corridor. And a lot of the London plan policy speak to not allowing a lot of open storage along major transportation corridors be it the 401, the 402, the VMP or other major transportation corridors into the city.

So that’s why we didn’t recognize that particular use on that property, although a towing business would be allowed. Thank you for that clarification. Moving on to committee members for comments. Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. Go ahead, sorry, go ahead. Okay, thanks. There were some concerns raised about, this might not create a fair playing field for large versus small operators.

I’d like to go through your chair to staff and just have them comment on how this, the changes being made would affect smaller operators versus larger. Mr. Parker. Through the chair, this is one of the comments we received at the meeting business owners.

And by increasing the number of zones where you could have these uses, that would hopefully help the smaller operators and not allow for others to sort of monopolize all of the sites. As I said in the report before there was only four zones that these uses were allowed in. Now that has been increased to 14. So there should be more locational options for everybody, be it small, be it large operators for these uses.

As long as they’re in locations, particularly with regards to impounding yards if they aren’t visible and they’re hidden or properly screened from view. Councillor Lehman. Thank you. Councillor Van Halce.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the work. And I wanted to ask a question through you. Help me understand a little bit.

The, how does this distinguish between a scrap yard and an impound lot, the differences in there? Mr. Parker. The main difference is that scrap yards tend to have cars piled on top of each other.

There’s parts, there’s, you know, they’re chopping down some vehicles for reuse. Whereas an impound yard is just where vehicles are stored temporarily, it could be on a daily basis, could be on a weekly or even monthly basis. For various reasons, one is that they were illegally parked, others that they were in an accident. So that’s what’s normally included in an impound yard.

Scrap yards tend to be a lot larger as well. And also typically have a retail component to them where they tear down cars and then sell the parts to the public for reuse in other vehicles. Councillor Van Halce. Oh, okay, thank you.

Thank you. That’s good. Madam Chair, I was maybe just described and I realized this is being done in conjunction with our bylaw and enforcement department. Let me describe one of the problems that happens in this industry.

Of course, the vast majority of operators do do this legitimately. I’ve been, had people describe some of the scams that go on here in the industry at times. What would happen is you’re… Councillor Van Halce, I don’t mean to interrupt, but are you making comments just before we go to the committee or I just wanna sort of understand.

Okay, so Madam Chair, what I’d hope to do is describe what we’ve seen that may go on and then ask how our zoning changes might assist with some of those things. I’m sorry, please proceed. Yeah, okay, so what has happened is that someone will get in an accident, it may be minor, someone will come with a tow truck, give you a card and tow it away. Then you may find out that if you were savvy and looked at it that the bill had been padded, you might be charged for dollies, for having it pulled out of the ditch, for having the things cleaned up on the road when that’s not the responsibility.

And so it’s a higher cost. Then you might realize that there’s no address on the card, so you don’t really know where your car is, you have to call and take a number of days to find out when it’s there, perhaps even over the weekend it’s not open. So all of a sudden when you might have been able to get your car in a couple of days, it might be a week. And then the costs for that, when added to the insurance for the repair, all of a sudden mean your vehicle is no longer, it’s simply written off.

And so that vehicle remains in the lot as now as an asset to the impound car owner who keeps those there and sometimes in the lots that pile up a long time until scrap prices go up and then they move a whole bunch of cars out to the scrap yard. And your question Council event host to staff is? Yes, so the question is has our, that was one of the problems with this. How does, or does this portion of our action help with that?

At all, does it clear up that issue somewhat or? Yes, I’ll go to Mr. Parker, thank you. Actually through the chair, I think Ms.

Musico can answer that question better than I can. My focus is mainly on the zoning and Ms. Musico’s got her hand up. Yes, thank you for helping me out there, Ms.

Musico. Hi, yes, thank you through the chair. I’m gonna answer this question in two parts, first three parts rather, so tonight’s presentation and proposal is strictly about land use matters. But I can certainly address Councilor Van Hulse questions.

One, he had about the handing out of cards or the identification of the business at the scene of an accident. All of those requirements are dealt through something called a commercial vehicle operators registration, which every single tow truck company needs. And again, that’s a registration through the ministry. So all of those requirements are stipulated through that mechanism.

What we’ve done with the business licensing bylaw in terms of fees, we have prescribed very, very specific fees for towing services and impound services related to accident scenes. So for example, for towing services, there’s a maximum of a $275 charge. The only additional fee that they can charge is $100 for winching. Then there’s a fee for larger vehicles.

So in terms of any questions about the padding of bills, our bylaws, it specifically regulates exactly what these businesses can charge for. If I’ve missed any questions, certainly let me know when I’m happy to answer. Thank you. Council then hosts, does that answer your questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. With that, I’d like to go to committee, looking for a motion regarding the recommendation before us. Councilor Turner, looking for a second.

Thank you, looking for a seconder in Councillor Lewis. With that, any further comments? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, I think that first of all, I wanna thank staff for the significant amount of work they put into trying to find a way to bring these things together. I think the fact that so many of these locations were in such diverse locations and not always appropriate locations reflects the entire reason why we needed to bring in of both the business licensing bylaw around tow trucks as well as look at zoning around tow truck businesses and in-pound yards. It really was something that was operating with very little regulation out there and frankly, very little consumer protection. And that’s not to say that, that’s not to point to any particular business and say that they weren’t doing that.

And Councillor Van Holst alluded to the fact that sometimes there are operations that have no physical presence in London, frankly, and come in and people find that their vehicles impounded in a completely different community from where they live. But I think this is an important step that we can take for the municipality. In terms of our own taking care of our own backyard and our own housekeeping and making sure that these are located in appropriate locations for fabrics of the neighborhood, for the zoning that happens around industrial areas as well. And for the kind of presentation that we want to have to the access points where people are coming into our communities.

So I know that it’s not one that’s gonna make everybody happy, but I think that we’ve landed in a spot where very, very reasonable steps have been taken to be as accommodating as possible to the existing operations, but really lay down some ground rules for any future operations that are coming forward as well in terms of where these can be located. So thanks to everybody for the work that’s gone into this. And hopefully this will provide the solution that we’re looking for. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

And with that, I’d like to proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, we’re going to move on to the next item that is scheduled for a public participation meeting, 3.4 for 1521 Sunningdale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road Committee. I’d like to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And I know usually we do a staff presentation. I would like to go to either Mr.

Barrett or Mr. Felberg for just some opening remarks, please. Certainly, thank you, Madam Chair, can you hear me? We sure can.

Perfect. So just like to provide a little bit of context to what you and the committee have before you this evening. After I complete some opening remarks, I’ll pass it over to Ms. Curtis who will walk you through the proposed development.

So the application that 1521 Hyde Park Road has been presented to this committee twice before. The first time in May of 2021, when Planning and Environment Committee referred the report back to staff to work with the school board and the developer to see if there was an opportunity to support the Thames Valley District School Board on the timing of school construction in the northwest area of the city. In September or early October of 2021, staff brought the report back to this committee with the same recommendation as the May 2021 report. And direction was provided to consider this property within a neighborhood place type and environmental review.

Subsequent to that October direction, the city received a draft line application in December of ‘21 and had been working with the applicant to structure zoning and draft conditions consistent with the neighborhood place type. Recognizing that these lands are currently within the UGB and the future development of the surrounding lands are not known. The report before you today offers a recommendation that we feel meets Council’s direction and those policies in the London Plan. As we get into finer details, decisions about how the proposed development ties into surrounding lands, we’re relying on control points in existing developments to the south and southeast.

For example, the center line of Jordan Boulevard, which is the street to the on the south side of Sun and Dale Road, a neighborhood connector lines up with the proposed north south street A of this development. Additionally, staff are also proposing to defer a few items to later stages in the approval process. Typically, we’d prefer to have all of these higher order studies completed, but in this case, the applicant has agreed to undertake an EA addendum to the Fox Hollow swim EA and complete the natural heritage assessments prior to the submission of detailed engineering studies. To facilitate this, we have a number of holding provisions and draft conditions that will allow us to adjust buffers and development limits following the completed studies.

And just one last point, before I pass off to Ms. Curtis, I’d also like to take the opportunity to thank her and Mr. Johnson for their work in coordinating what has been a complex planning process and public input process. It may have also been a bit confusing for members of the public, it’s the timing of the PPM has changed, along with the three different presentations of this report over the past year.

At this point, Madam Chair, I’d like to pass the virtual microphone over to Ms. Curtis and she can provide an overview of the subdivision application. Thank you, Mr. Felberg, Ms.

Curtis. Thank you. Through you, Chair Hopkins, this is Allison Curtis on behalf of planning and development for item 3.4, which can be found on page 288 of the agenda package. As noted, this application is for a draft plan of subdivision and associated official plan and zoning bylaw amendments at 1521 Sunnydale Road West and 2631 Hyde Park Road.

The subject lands are located in the Northwest quadrant of the city at the intersection of Sunnydale Road West and Hyde Park Road. The site is approximately 20.5 hectares in size, contains an unevaluated wetland and about six residential lots. The lands are surrounded by residential uses directly to the south, while the lands to the northeast and west are located outside of the urban growth boundary and are zoned, designated and used for agricultural purposes. The draft plan of subdivision presented on slide four proposes a good mix of land use types within the neighborhood.

There are both low and medium density residential blocks to provide for a range of housing types and densities, as well as a park and open space block to provide for recreational opportunities. The lands will be serviced by five new streets, two of which are proposed new neighborhood connectors and there are potential connections to the adjacent lands included. Official plan amendments are considered to facilitate this development on the direction of municipal council. The recommended designations include the open space, low density residential and multifamily medium density residential under the 1989 official plan and the green space and neighborhoods place types under the London plan.

The lands are currently zoned as holding open space and the new designations include recommendations for zoning that offer a mix of residential zones to provide a range of options in terms of housing form and density. So as open space zones that will provide for recreational and stormwater management services. I draw your attention to the recommended zoning on slide five and in particular block 17 fronting onto Sunningdale Road. The OS1 and residential zones are included on this block as the extensive land required for stormwater management is yet to be determined.

The completion of the EA addendum identified by Mr. Falberg will determine what is required and the residential zones may be removed. Holding provisions for looping provision of securities, assessment of natural heritage, urban design, site plan and servicing have been applied to the subject lands and the zoning amendment including these holding provisions was provided to committee today. We apologize that this was not included in the report.

Comments and concerns were received from the community, some of which include access to the subdivision, increased traffic and noise levels, grading of development and the existing land uses, compatibility of the proposed development, an alignment with the provincial policy statement, the official 1989 official plan and at the London plan. As per the report, these issues can be addressed through the detailed engineering review process, implementation of holding provisions and completion of additional studies. As noted, there is an unevaluated wetland and potentially significant wildlife habitat contained within the subject lands. In addition, the environmental impact study and hydro geological assessment were identified as incomplete.

Addressing these incomplete reports is a condition of draft approval to be completed prior to the focus design studies phase. This will help to accurately identify and delineate the natural feature and potentially significant wildlife habitat, as well as determine if any additional buffers are required, the applicant is amenable to this requirement. Prior to this application, the subject lands had not been considered or studied for development as part of the development charge background studies and as such, servicing had also not been considered. To the review of the draft plan, the city and the applicant have agreed to conditions that will allow for a mix of temporary and permanent servicing solutions for these lands.

To the detailed design phase of this application, work plans and servicing strategies will be finalized and included in a subdivision agreement. The applicant has also requested the city consider installing services as part of the Sunnydale Road upgrade project planned for 2025. Following detailed design, the city will consider this as an option, but at the developer’s cost. Further to the direction of municipal council on October 15th, 2021, it is on the recommendation of the director of planning and development that the directed official plan amendments and recommended zoning bylaw amendments be introduced at the municipal council meeting on May 3rd, 2022.

That municipal council be advised of any issues raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for draft plan of subdivision. And that the approval authority be advised that the municipal council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed draft plan of subdivision, subject to prescribed conditions and red line revisions. Thank you, Madam Chair. This concludes my presentation and staff are available to address any of your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Curtis. Any technical questions from committee? I see none, I’ll move on to the applicant.

I know Mr. Campbell from Zalinka Priemo is here. On behalf of the applicant, I can see the applicant from Auburn. Mr.

Stapleton is here as well as Tim Stubborn from Stantec as well. So Mr. Campbell, you have up to five minutes. Thanks very much Madam Chair, and again, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Thank you for the microphone, Jack, I appreciate it. We don’t have a particularly large amount of information to add to the staff report. It was quite comprehensive and we’re certainly supportive of its conclusions.

I know there’s been quite a bit of history with this particular application. And we believe that this is at a great point for committee to be able to make a decision on it. We have all the facts available to present to committee and we think that staff has done a good job of portraying them. I would like to take the opportunity to thank staff for their work on this, as well as council and committees direction for looking at the development of these lands.

And Madam Chair, as you’ve noted, Mr. Stapleton and others are available for any questions that the committee may have, and I can also answer those as well. So we certainly encourage the committee to approve the staff recommendation that’s presented before you today. Thank you, Mr.

Campbell. Moving on now to the public. I would like to, I do have a list, and I would like to first go to Richard Kraknell. Mr.

Kraknell, if you’re here. Yes, Chair, I’m here. Can you hear me? Yes, I can.

I just want to welcome you to the planning and environment committee, public participation meeting. You can state your address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. So please proceed. Thank you very much, Chair.

My name’s Richard Kraknell, and I live at 1535 Sunnydale Road West. I’d like to address the proposed use of the land to the north and east of my property, a stormwater management facility identified as Block 28. Block 28 is new. It’s never been presented before in any revision until two weeks ago.

The proposed facility will be four feet from the foundation of my house. I have requested an engineering report from the city that supports the use of this land as a stormwater facility. But if you had to receive one, I wish I could provide comment on the type of drain, grating and flow, but I am unable to. The R1 designation in Block 14 has been dropped, thus, decreasing the amount of permeable soil for stormwater absorption.

I feel this increase in surface water will be pushed towards my house, raising the risk of flooding. My insurance broker is of the opinion that locating a stormwater management facility so close to the foundation of my house will most likely lead to my inability to purchase flood insurance. I would like assurances from the city that I will be able to continue to purchase flood insurance before proceeding with this zoning application as well. I have not seen a new report with respect to the increased noise levels created by the change in density of Block 14.

As for Block 15, I failed to see how the city could allow for the possibility of two residential homes being surrounded by institutional restricted office buildings. A separate block should be created for those types of designations located away from the current residential homes. We have received notices for this meeting. The attached proposed zoning plan is materially different from anything previously proposed.

It introduced two new roads, a new stormwater management facility, along with a change in the requested zoning designations. I failed to see the relevance of the previous supporting documents provided by the applicant to support the current application. It is obvious to me that the planning process has become an ad hoc, and this will lead to long-term planning issues. For the past two years, we have been subjected to several versions of this planning application.

The most recent requests for written comments was for December of 2021, and was for a plan we’re not even discussing tonight. A lot of effort has been put into those comments. That was time that was wasted. Then we received a notice for a meeting on March 25th.

I started preparing my comments for that plan. Several days later, we received a notice that the meeting was canceled. One of the definitions of harassment is asking someone to do something repeatedly for no purpose. This process is like my family and myself exasperated, okay?

And honestly, after hearing staff’s report, I can’t believe that I am addressing this right now. I’m gonna stop there, Chair, because I’m gonna go off script. Thank you, Mr. Cracknell.

I’d like to now go to Bridget Dender. Welcome, Mr. Dender. Please set your name and the address, if you wish, and you have up to five minutes and before you do that, could you just speak into the microphone?

So we go. - Hello? Yes, please proceed. - Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, everybody. Hello, my name’s Bridget Dender, and I live at 2545 Hyde Park Road, with my husband and my three small children. When we bought our house back in 2012, we were told the surrounding land was never to be built on. It would be used for farmland cemetery use.

We enjoy having our privacy knowing we have only one neighbor. The proposed developments behind us and beside us affect our ability to have reasonable enjoyment of our property for everyday living, especially with our three small children. The significant increase in density will result in significant increase in noise from the land behind and beside us. We depend on our well for water.

We have not been informed on how grading will affect our ability to maintain the well and provide adequate drinking water for our family. Our home was bought to be our forever home, and now we feel like this is a huge negative impact on our future and our children’s future, and this makes us feel uneasy not knowing what our future holds. We are concerned about the effect this will have on our property value as our home will be out of place and not compatible with what is being proposed. From referencing to the notice of the application, we have noted that the proposed zoning is inconsistent with existing density and building type.

The proposal asks for an increase in density and significantly be beside and behind our house. It asks for the ability to put in apartments with lower level businesses and row housing, which is incompatible with existing structures. We also feel that we will be significant increase in noise levels because of the proposed densities. The row of trees and bushes surrounding my property will not be suitable to buffer for privacy and noise as the lower half of my bushes are bare and absolutely does not contain any noise within our backyard.

We are absolutely heartbroken over the changes to come around our house as this was not what we have hoped for our future. For these reasons, we do not want the city of London to change the current zoning, thank you. Thank you. I’d like to now proceed to Laura Renier.

Laura, can you hear me? I can hear you. Thank you. I understand that you are going to be, your husband is unable to join you.

I just want to confirm that. That’s correct. And the request is that you’re able to speak on his behalf. Yes.

And with that committee members, I would need the committee support to allow Ms. Renier to go over her five minutes and speak on behalf of herself as well as her husband. And I see one hand up looking for the committee’s request to extend the five minutes allotted. I don’t see any Deputy Mayor Morgan’s, everyone’s nodding.

Okay, looks, I see one is not in support but I do have the majority of committee does support the extension. So Councillor Turner. I’m Chair, I could at least suggest we call a vote on that, Ms. Burton, I would not be unanimous.

I don’t support the extension. It’s the same household, the same points. I don’t quite see the purpose of the extension for that reason. Okay, I’d like to go to our secretary to see if we can take a vote on it then.

Like it’s the motion is to allow Mrs. Renier to speak for longer than five minutes if we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to two. If Ms.

Renier, you are allowed the extension if you can state your name address and you have the five minute extension up to 10 minutes. Please proceed. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I reside at 1445 Sunnydale Road West.

I am speaking today on behalf of myself and my spouse to protect our legal rights as the revised draft plan of subdivision is introducing a hazard adjacent to our property with known serious health risks and access egress concerns and a proposed block 14. Area density is not in keeping with the character of our existing neighborhood. We do not support the applicant’s planning application draft plan of subdivision and requests for zoning bylaw amendment. We have concerns about the overall planning process to date.

For two years, we have been addressing related official plan, zoning bylaw amendments and draft plan of subdivision revisions. Our submitted comments for the canceled March 28th planning committee meeting rescheduled for today are now mostly irrelevant. The planning report was only made available to us one business day prior to this meeting. We were not provided with reasonable time to review or the opportunity to submit relevant written comments for this radically revised draft plan of subdivision.

We have serious health and access egress concerns with proposed street A running parallel to the west side of our property with access at Sunnydale Road to align with Jordan Boulevard. First in 2012, a draft plan of subdivision was approved for lands on the south side of Sunnydale that showed a right in right out only access for street G. Now Jordan Boulevard. At the time, the transportation and engineering review raised concerns regarding the proposed local street connection to Sunnydale, our driveway and measures must be taken to mitigate any impacts.

Then in a subsequent 2018 draft plan extension report where no notice was provided to us, change this intersection to a full turning movements. Public notice should have been provided due to the serious safety access issues as a full movement intersection at this location is dangerously close to our driveway. Now this radically revised draft plan proposes that street A run parallel to our property is proposed to be a main entrance for the subdivision access to Sunnydale Road. This access is only 30 meters away from our driveway and not in keeping with the city of London access management guideline that state a minimum corner clearance of 60 meters should be provided to an existing driveway at a controlled intersection.

A turning lane for street A grading would also significantly encroach on our land. We have serious health concerns with street A being adjacent to our property. Traffic is a big source of nitrogen dioxide, ultra fine particles and black carbon near roads, all of which have been associated with adverse health outcomes including asthma, cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory and cognitive impairment. Metal, particle pollutants from breaking and tires are even more dangerous than exhaust.

Elevated air pollution levels can be found up to 250 meters away from major roads according to University of Toronto research. People living in that area could see significant health impacts occurring even at comparatively low levels. The International Agency of Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans and exhaust from motor vehicles is a major contributor to outdoor air pollution. Propose street A placement along our property will expose us to inaccessible concentration levels of traffic related pollution, infiltrating our backyard and even our home making both toxic to our health.

A street wall will not block this health risk. According to public health Ontario, there should be a buffer zone when planning land use between busy streets and existing homes. There is no such buffer zone proposed between street A and our property. We have serious noise concerns regarding proposed street A traffic and the medium density block 14 development.

Again, research, a complete noise analysis has not been provided. These subject lands were only included within the city boundary as open space after the city was instructed by an OMB ruling to find a way to allow the land to be used for the purposes of a cemetery. The open space land use designation chapter 8a is applied to lands which are to be maintained as park, space or in a natural state. These lands include private or public and I thought were recognized by council as having a city wide regional or provincial significance.

Farm land is considered significant. If the OMB ruling LPAT zoning, if that ruling, the zoning, the intent and purpose for this farmland does not exist, open space for the purposes of a cemetery, why is it not more appropriate to redesignate these lands as agriculture? We question the overall planning processes to date that are pushing to rezone this open space into a multi-residential standalone development when there is no guarantee if or when any surrounding farmland will or should be included within the urban growth boundary. Does the city not have close to 20 years worth of development land available?

This farmland is a significant valuable natural resource. What is the rationale for not following the planning departments October 2021 recommendation to wait for a comprehensive review of the urban growth boundary, area infrastructure requirements, transportation, 2021 Canada census information, et cetera. Canada census information will be released over the course of 2022 that will add value and guidance to long-term planning such as the percentage of households in the city with extended multi-generational family units consisting of grandparents, parents, children, siblings and their children. This means by not considering this means overcrowding at schools significantly more traffic than on the applicant’s traffic impact analysis reports noise and other overcrowding issues in keeping with the provincial policy statement on how and where to grow, which speaks to building complete communities and protecting agriculture lands to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure communities are more resilient to the impacts of changing climate.

It seems that this farmland area, 200 acres should be planned as a whole complete community that includes subject lands and adjacent farmland if ever included within the urban growth boundary. We question the appropriate appropriateness of creating a bylaw to change the official plan in support of this small development that does not align with the long-term difficult environmental planning issues identified within the provincial and London plan. Why the push by several council members? Is there a concern that this land could be removed from the urban growth boundary with the boundary review?

This has been going on for two years to be very clear. We are very concerned about the serious health hazard and access issues associated with street G and noise related health issues from proposed street aid and housing densities greater than R4 and are prepared to appeal any plan approval that introduces a health hazard next to our property. Thank you, manager. Thank you, Mrs.

Renee. Moving on to the next resident I have is Mohammed Musa. Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes, I can, if you could state your address if you wish, Mr.

Musa, and you have up to five minutes. It’s Mohammed Musa, 155 foreign town house. Let me just start by saying, I think so far, I’m the only one who is not a neighbor of this property. So anyone who knows me knows that I’m far from being anti-development.

What I am is I am pro-planning principles does not meet that threshold. Let me just start by saying that having read this application and staffs the application, this could put onto any property, whether adjoining or anywhere else in the city, for the most part. I mean, environmentally sensitive land-aside, full application could be placed overlap on anything there. It’s very generic, respectfully to staff, I’m not saying it’s not good, it is very much.

And now we don’t have any geotechnical, any kind of geological, any of that other stuff. And it’s very generic. And I’m not taken away from staff, like I said respectfully, who was well put together. But if you read it very carefully, buried in there, is that standalone, this has been rejected.

And the recommendation really is that it needs to be rejected. The recommendation in there is, if you read between the lines, going from OS3 to, you know, R has been rejected before and no comment is being made on that. Make no mistake about it, you are reopening up the urban growth boundary. You are creating a new swamp where you pit neighbor against neighbor and planting nightmares.

You are doing that if you approve this. And you heard the opening statement, the preamble by Mr. Falberg as to, you know, to give this context. This property was brought into the urban growth boundary for the sole use of the cemetery by a decision made by the OMB in 1998, a verbal decision.

It’s not just open space, which a lot of people are stating. It’s OS3 specifically and solely for the use of the cemetery and any ancillary uses. You may think these are academic arguments, but appeals are all based on academic arguments. One thing I will add is my close to my time.

You have approximately one minute and 40 seconds. Thank you. I thought I heard something in the background. Appendix F, which is a provincial policy statement 1.1.1.

I need to read it to you directly. I need to pull it up as to what role of council is, healthy, livable, and safe community of the earth is sustained by accommodating a part B, accommodating an appropriate, affordable, and market-based range of multi-residential types, including single detached and additional, da-da-da-da, institutional, including places of worship, cemeteries, and long-term care homes. Institutional, emphasizing that because a healthy mix of your removing institutional and putting it, if this passes, and putting residential in its place. I would go through, I don’t have enough time, I’d go through the history of the holding provisions on these properties where in 2001, there was an attempted removal of holding provisions, which was what they were, site plan was requested for, cemetery, but somehow that fell through the cracks.

I had a question the last time. When was the last time that City of London did an OS3 to either a residential or agricultural change in zoning? And have you checked with the MGCS and BAO in regard to how this would be performed? You have a hundred seconds left.

Three seconds? The, I see nothing about MDSs, minimum distance separations. There is a something next door that is capable of holding livestock, I won’t spend too much time on that. You’re trading off, sorry, you’re using, you’re taking out 3.14.

Mr. Mosse, if you can conclude, please. This will be the last point. Taking out 3.14 hectares, changing it from residential for the next item, and you are attempting to approve 20.5 acres, factor of sevenfold.

A fair point would be to take, if you’re gonna take out 3.14, add 3.14, out of the institutional, and keep it zoned as OS3. Thank you, Mr. Mosse. Moving on to, I have next on my list, Ellie Joma, please come forward, sir.

Take your address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes, please proceed. Yeah, my name’s Ellie Joma. We’re at 1431 Sunningdale Road West. We are on the North side as well, immediately adjacent to the land that we are discussing.

Madam Chair, the council, the planning committee, and the city of London. We are concerned that the proposed development of the lands without taking into consideration the surrounding properties to the North and East will result in an inefficient development pattern in the area, the proposed development in terms of its servicing requirements, and to create an efficient land use pattern, needs to take into consideration the overall needs of the surrounding lands. This should include a requirement for infrastructure planning in the area to achieve cost-effective development patterns and application of standards to minimize the land consumption and servicing costs. This approach will ensure that the necessary infrastructure and public services facilities are or will be accessible to the surrounding lands that are also ripe for development opportunities.

Again, it is appropriate that the infrastructure for the proposed development be coordinated and integrated with the surrounding properties, which is consistent with the policies of the PPS 2020 and the London plant. Such an approach will promote development in the area that is comprehensive and integrated into the surrounding area. Servicing of these lands needs to take into consideration the surrounding lands and be part of the comprehensive development and servicing strategy. There’s no mention in this document that was presented of planned sanitary services and how it’s integrated with the planned infrastructure of the whole area, the sanitary previously was planned to go to come from the east but now that has changed and there has not been proper planning in this respect.

It is appropriate that the necessary infrastructure for the proposed development be configured in such a manner as to meet current and project needs in the area. There is no indication or confirmation that this has been achieved. The development needs to be completed in such a way so as to ensure the timely provision of the infrastructure to meet current and project needs. It is clear that there is considerable development pressure on the area and the servicing should be developed in such a manner so as it can easily be integrated with the surrounding properties.

A comprehensive approach to development in this area is required to ensure that any development is integrated with the appropriate infrastructure planning. The development of the land for residential land uses without consideration of the surrounding lands to the north and east will result in an inefficient development pattern that should be avoided. The London Plan, through its policy framework, instructs that all municipal services are to be planned on a systems basis requiring that the entire system be considered when planning for a single property such as the case here. The impacts of the increased traffic on the local road network and the needs of the surrounding community should be taken into consideration through a comprehensive and integrated approach considering the impacts associated with the long-term development of the area.

We are concerned that the proposal results in ad hoc planning creates servicing constraints on the surrounding area and fails to provide sufficient facilities to support the proposed development. In conclusion, it is our position that the proposal is premature until such a time as the development of the surrounding lands are also taken into consideration in the area of development in a comprehensive manner through the integration of services and long-term planning. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr.

Joma. Have next on my list, Mr. Ahmed Al Turk. Mr.

Ahmed is with me. He’s welcome to make comments of your wishes. It is the same, Ahmed. I’d just like to add one more thing that through my communication with the city, my understanding for the last 20 years that storm and sanitary for the whole area was coming from the east side of the city towards our property and towards the next door property.

I tried to connect with the city to find out what’s happening with the sanitary on that issue and my understanding that it has been changed without any study, without any comprehensive study for the area and without understanding what’s going on as far as the services for the rest of the area. That is my comment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Al Turk. And I’d like to ask if there’s anyone else that would like to speak to this application, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to this application, please come forward. With that, I’d like to go to the committee to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And I’d like to go to the committee for comments. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s important always to frame the discussion that we get a motion on the floor. So I’m gonna move the staff recommendation so that we can then have a discussion around that and we’ll see where that leads us. I’ll need a seconder, Councillor Hillier.

So there is a motion on the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m gonna share some comments on this now in terms of this application. And of course, we know that it’s related to the next item that we’ll be dealing with in terms of the school as well.

So I’m gonna say right off the bat that although it may not be a usual process, I think when we’re talking about these applications, we have to think in tandem. In fact, there’s a community benefit coming here. And I know that’ll be outlined later in the next item. But I wanna go back to a piece of feedback that I heard and I wanna share some other comments as well in terms of the staff recommendation previously was to refuse.

Well, actually the previous staff recommendation was to put a community growth place-type designation. It wasn’t to support the application that had come forward previously, but it was not to leave it as open space. It was to create a community growth designation. And that was in the slide deck in the original presentation because this is inside the urban growth boundary.

And however it got there, it is inside the urban growth boundary where we want development to happen. When there’s been a lot of, I’ve seen a number of comments in emails and even on social media about this being a sprawl application. You know, it was the last cycle of this committee that we received a report from Professor Mike Moffat with regard to the explosion of residential growth outside the city limits. And I think that we have to ask ourselves, if we were to say no to this application to a development inside the urban growth boundary, how many more homes is it going to push being built out in Elderton or in Mount Bridges or in Dorchester or Thorndale?

Because that is the pattern that we are seeing. And if we want to talk about sprawl, the worst kind of sprawl, the worst thing that we can do to respect agricultural land is to push residential growth out into the county where it’s not only going to likewise take over prime agricultural land, but we have to be realistic. The jobs that people buying those residential properties outside the city are working are not moving out to the county with them. They are in fact going to be commuting into London daily for those jobs, for their kids’ recreational activities, for shopping reasons.

So we’re actually going to extend their commute. When we want to talk about the impact of sprawl and greenhouse gases and the climate emergency action plan, the worst thing we can do is push people to drive further from their residents to their place of employment, to their place of education, to their place of entertainment. So we’ve also heard some comments about how it needs to be developed with a secondary plan and in inclusion of all the other blocks around it. We put in place secondary plans in developed areas all the time.

Not too long ago at this committee, we were talking about the Wellington Gateway secondary plan for the development of the bus rapid transit corridor along Wellington Road. That area is built out. And there will be changes in that area as the secondary plan gets developed and brought forward. But it’s a secondary plan that’s coming after development.

And the same thing can happen here. And we heard through our staff report and the staff recommendations are in place and there are some conditions that protect this from being just simply a rubber stamp. The developer is going to have to meet a number of conditions along the way. But we heard already that there are road lineups planned as it’s mapped out today so that they will connect with other imagined opportunities in the future.

Presuming, of course, that the 2023 urban growth boundary review brings other parcels in, which it may or may not. So I’m certainly not, respectfully, I’m not supportive of the notion that this has to wait until a comprehensive secondary plan can be done. And I am going to be supportive of this because this is not sprawl. This is within the urban growth boundary.

And we know absolutely the sprawl is happening and we know that infill is better than sprawl, absolutely. But we are seeing, not everybody is going to live in an apartment building. There is still a demand for single family homes, for stacked townhouses, for other sorts of medium density development. And those needs in the city need to be filled as well.

Otherwise, all we are doing is pushing the sprawl out into the county and really acting as though we’ve eliminated sprawl, when in fact, all we’ve done is made somebody else’s problem to the detriment of the regional environment, not just the environment within the city itself. So I’m supportive of this application. I know that others may disagree, but I think that given all of the conditions that our staff have imposed on it, and given that this is still within the urban growth boundary, it makes sense to proceed. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

Are there any other comments from committee members? Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you, Chair. I’m going to make a number of comments on this.

And first, I want to start by saying like, I honestly believe that there can be differences of opinions from members of Council on how to proceed on this one. And I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is having these really respectful, important debates on issues where we have some decisions to make. But I want to start off by emphasizing that the direction that Council gave was to bring forward the applications that you see before us tonight, but this one and the next one, in a manner that allowed different parties without the city necessarily being a part of those discussions, different parties to come together to solve a problem in the ward that I represent. And that is the problem with overcrowding at the school, Sir Arthur Curry.

I’ve talked a lot about that in the past. I’m not going to go into the details about that right now. But if you recall, the original application wanted to pitch a school on the north side of Sun and Gail Road on these particular lands. And that was an ideal.

In fact, it wasn’t something that I supported. It wasn’t something our staff supported. And having the opportunity to allow the parties to go out and see if there’s another option for them, something that can be freely negotiated and not take up the time or additional cost to residents of expropriation seem like something worthwhile. But I always maintain that whatever came back before us has to meet our staffs full and detailed planning analysis for our consideration and the consideration of this committee.

And I believe that that is what staff have done here today. Councillor Lewis makes a good point about the first time this came before us. And the staff’s alternate recommendation was not to say this is going to stay a cemetery or this is going to stay open space. But to add that, to suggest that the community growth designation be added, which is really a pre-development designation and that step between the somewhere mentioning of where the lands are, where they’re identified as growth and then where they get to the process that we’re at today.

And so, yes, we didn’t do that step. And we’re not doing that step because we’re trying to solve a challenge. But there were a number of concerns and staff outlined in that original application and through the process. There were concerns about servicing.

There were concerns about developing and planning the community together. There were concerns about the institutional uses on the north side of the road, including the school. And concerns about ensuring that there was an environmental review designation on the lands so that we could protect any natural environmentally sensitive features. All of which I think staff have dealt with in their report today.

And I think what they’ve done is we have a different application before us that alleviates a number of those staff concerns to the point where staff have said in the report that this application now conforms with the branch of policy statements. It conforms with the London plan and it conforms with our 1989 official plan. And that’s important because we should be judging this application based on that report and the merits that staff have assessed it on. A number of the concerns with servicing have been solved.

And I know Mr. Felberg and others can talk about what the solution is. He touched on that in his opening comments. And those are really important because a number of those questions are what drove our staff to the refusal on the application.

Today, I think we have alleviated and this application alleviates a number of those concerns and you see what staff have written in the report before you. I want to say too, and this seems to be something that is confusing in the community, that this land is in the urban growth boundary. Like it’s not expanding the boundary. I’ve spoken with Mr.

Yeoman, this is not going to have any bearing on the review of the urban growth boundary process that we will engage in as a council. And that will be a technical process. It will decide how much land we need in the city. And it will decide if new land comes in where it is.

And there will be public consultation on that as well as a council decision and vote. Farmland. And I think that we certainly have to support farmland. And there are places in the city where we absolutely protect farmland.

The urban growth boundary outside of the urban growth boundary exists 44% of the city. So that’s 18,000 hectares or so. Of that, 18,000 hectares, 12,300. And of our about 66% of that land is farmland.

So 29% of all the total land in the city is sitting as protected farmland outside of the urban growth boundary. I think that’s important to recognize because I think we all agree that we have very fertile land here and in the county, as Council Lewis mentioned, surrounding the city. And it’s important that we do that. Our urban growth boundary is the division line by which we protect where we will grow and where we aren’t.

And this particular proposal is inside of that. We also, I think through Mr. Moffitt’s report, recognize that we need all types of development here. We certainly need to continue to support the high density development that we see come through this committee and have supported.

We have to support the infill development that we’ve seen, even though it’s very difficult. And I’m sure Councillor Cassidy would have lots to comment on about how difficult that is given the application that just came through this Council that we supported. But we also need some options for low density and medium density residential that are contemplated on this site. And how much is that really?

Well, if both applications passed today, there will be some medium density displaced on the south side of Sunningdale Road. And I asked for an estimate on what is the net new development that this site would incur? ‘Cause although one of our speakers today gave the total hectorage of this lot, we know that there are roads and there are protected lands and there is green space and there is a new park and there is a stormwater management facility. And the actual estimated net new is about 150 single family homes with 40 foot frontages and 98 townhouses.

If you factor in the displacement of lands to the south, if a school is built there. There, the school is pretty important to me. I represent the area. I know I’m gonna feel it like other people want.

There are thousands of parents who see what their kids go through each and every day. It’s really hard to engage and watch them. So I know the next application is pretty important to me. And I think this application stands on its own, but I also really support that there isn’t gonna be a school in the north side of the road where there shouldn’t be with this draft plan.

And there’s the possibility, strong possibility of a school on the south side. And you saw the supportive letter from the Thames Valley District School Board for this application in the next. It appears to me that they are very confident that this will move forward in a positive way that will lead to them to have a school year sooner without the additional cost of expropriation. And I gotta tell you, the families, the 1,000 students at that overcrowded school and the 2,000 families, 2,000 parents approximately that are associated with that school, like they are in such a dire situation that any opportunity we can do to give them some hope that they will get a school sooner is huge for them.

And so I honestly think that this application stands on the merits that our staff have put in the report. I know that the school is a consideration for some, it’s a consideration for lots in the community. Frankly, if I really wanted to, I could have had a petition of 1,000 people telling us to do this, but I didn’t wanna go out and do that because I think we had to set these two applications forward, have our staff diligently and properly assess them against our policies and let’s remember the staff, the direction that was given to our staff was not to go in, absolutely do this, but to go address some of these concerns that they have and then ensure that these, any applications that come forward are assessed under the provincial policy statements, the London Plan, the Official Plan and our policies and procedures. So that’s what’s done.

And based on the reading of the report before us, I can be supportive of what staff has put before us and will be supporting the application today. And a council, I know not everybody will like that. I know not everybody is going to do that. But I think we can have a respectful and common sense and thoughtful debate on these challenging matters of school overcrowding and housing and development at this council.

And I think we’ve always done that. And I will completely respect and listen to what my colleagues have to say about this application, but those are my comments today. And thank you, Chair, for letting me speak. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Morgan, Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I may have to leave a little bit early in my apologies if I do, but thank you for recognizing me. First off, I’d like to recognize what the mayor said. I think the discussions are certainly going to be one’s interpretation.

And I think everybody is trying to do what they think is appropriate. However, at the root of this, I really see this as a very political move. And my concerns that I’ve stated before still hold today. And in fact, they’ve only grown with those concerns to where we are now.

If I might just really quickly through you, Madam Chair, Deputy Mayor Morgan made a comment that about how our urban growth boundary is calculated and our land needs forecasts, how do we, through you, Madam Chair, to staff, how do we calculate how much residential space we need versus what we have? So what is counted in the current inventory? Does it include open space? Or does it include those lands designated as residential?

I can go to staff. Thank you, to the Chair, Greg Barrett speaking. The current calculations are based on lands that have been identified for development. So it would not include green space lands.

So in this instance, and that was noted in the previous reports that these lands haven’t been identified as green space, had not been included many calculations either for servicing matters or for land needs matters as it related to future development. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. I appreciate that.

So here’s my concern. There’s a lot of very specious arguments tonight. One of them is talking about how this isn’t sprawl, that this is already within the urban growth boundary. This parcel isn’t a regular parcel that was included in the urban growth boundary as the cemetery/open space.

It was not contemplated for development. You see how irregular it is because the urban growth boundary cuts across from east to west across the north and then suddenly just northward to include this area. And you can read in the staff report about how it came to be included within the UGB. It’s not contemplated for growth.

So there is a process for including these things and that is our urban growth boundary space needs requirements and projections. And the appropriate time to do that would be within that. It’s also, as you see, it hasn’t been contemplated at all in the development charge servicing studies. This servicing temporary servicing is going to be required for this and it’s right outside of the process.

When this came up recently in terms of de-designating the land as a heritage lands, we suddenly had a couple applicants that were land owners that had lands outside of the urban growth boundary saying, well, what about us? Of course, that makes sense. It’s going to lead to a bit of a need to. This really completely bypasses anything resulting resembling an appropriate process.

This was rejected multiple times by staff as premature. I still completely believe that it’s inappropriate for counselors to have been involved in this type of negotiation in any way. If this had any resemblance to the policies in our official plan and was to help navigate small nuances within an application process, then the involvement of individual counselors would be appropriate, but this is such a massive departure from them and it serves only to the advantage when developer. The school board also was really out of line to ask for us to be involved in this as well.

They continue to have expropriation tools at their disposal and they still have not really adequately addressed to me, certainly to my satisfaction, why those aren’t sufficient to be able to address their land’s needs. They’ve talked about timing, but the timing of this, just in its own process, is going to take a long, long time as well. And the difference between the expropriation process and this is going to be marginal at best. We’ve heard a few times that this has staff’s full approval.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. It has the recommendation because Council directed them to do so. So I really hope we stop mischaracterizing that too. We talk about the community benefit, and that’s almost Machiavellian in framing it.

The ends justify the means. We have a planning process that should mean something and we’re ready to throw it away because the children, and we hear those arguments a lot. I’m not trying to trivialize that. I recognize there’s overcrowding in the school.

However, there are very clear lanes in terms of how we, we applied land use plan and how schools can access lands for development and how they can address some of those overcrowding issues. That’s the responsibility of the board. There’s an entire school board that has almost the same size of budget as we do to be able to address these things. So I’m very concerned about this.

I think it sets a wildly inappropriate precedent. I can only see everybody else wanting to do something very similar in terms of how we do applications. It’s not orderly development of lands. And you’ve heard from neighboring landowners as well about their concerns, about the impacts on their properties.

I don’t see how this makes any sense. So I urge the committee, I recognize where this is probably going to go. I urge the committee to reject it. I’ll certainly be voting against it.

Thank you, Councillor Turner. Is there anyone else that would like to make comments to this recommendation? Councillor Halmer. Thanks very much.

And thanks for recognizing me at the committee. If I cut out, it may be because my lovely daughter turns off my computer, which is what happened a few minutes ago. And thanks for letting me rejoin. I want to say a couple of things at the outset.

I do have a couple of questions and then I’m going to make some comments about natural proposal. First thing I want to say is, I recognize that staff have been directed to bring forward these amendments by council. And although that was quite a close vote, it was a close vote that passed council. And so you’re falling through in that direction.

And I don’t have any hard feelings about that. And I think frankly, looking at the report, the staff have done a pretty good job with the hand that they have been dealt by council. My question is that I just want to make sure that I’m clear about it before I start in on my comments is about the overall number of residential units that are planned for this development. I think from looking at the vacant land inventory for the subdivision, it looks like it’s something in the order of 740 units.

I just want to clarify that with a staff to make sure that that’s in the ballpark. And if it’s not, if you give me a smell of what you think is going to be in the subdivision, if it’s approved, does it’s designed? Yeah, I’d like to go to staff. Madam Chair, we’re just looking into it at the moment.

Just give us a moment. Maybe quicker, Madam Chair, if we checked with the applicant, I think Mr. Stapleton is here and Mr. Campbell are here.

They might be able to answer that much quicker than us. Mr. Campbell, or Mr. Stapleton?

Madam Chair, thanks for the question. I’m just reviewing our information right now if Mr. Stapleton can get to the answer quicker. I certainly haven’t speak.

Mr. Stapleton. Thank you, Madam Chair. The estimates we provided previously were about 550 units.

There’s a range of units for the larger block. The block 15 could be somewhere between the range of 200 and 300 depending on what form of housing you place on that. There’s a range of zoning that’s applied to that. So it ranges from two to 300 block 14.

We did a concept that showed about 98 two story units and the rest of the subdivision would allow for 150 to 165 roughly single family owns, depending on frontage, 150 is a 40 foot lot. So it’s around that number depending on how I finally that’s a lot of them. Does that mean? It’s approximately somewhere around 550, 55 single units.

Thank you. That’s the total, just to confirm. Yes, that could be the total. Thank you.

I’m glad I asked as I was obviously wrong with that reading. So still quite a lot, 550. And so I get these are the points that I wanna make. I have a couple of points about the proposal and I wanna organize them this way.

One is around, what is the problem that the sort of deal to do the subdivision faster and do the school faster? What is the problem it’s trying to solve? And I think the way it has been framed is it’s a school capacity issue or trying to get more spaces for kids so that they can go to school close to where they live, which of course, I think there’s a lot of agreement that that’s a great idea. And the question is, how do we do that?

And I would say that the proposal, I would say it’s accelerating the acquisition of the school lands to the south by making this kind of contingent offer. But what it’s doing is essentially replicating the exact problem that has led to the school capacity issue in the first place, which is a lot of residential subdivisions being built in this area without enough schools to keep pace. And here we have an area to the north, which is going around the normal planning process for how we would plan out in a comprehensive way, a new subdivision, a big area like this to be added in. It’s trying to go faster.

At a time when we really need to slow down and let the school capacity catch up to an area that’s been growing so rapidly. So imagine, if you think about it, we’re talking about adding 550 new homes to an area that’s already over capacity for the school children who already live in that area, plus there’s all kinds of construction that’s happening already in approved subdivisions already. So we’re really accelerating the residential at a time when we really just need to be accelerating the school building, just the school building. That’s the part that needs to be sped up.

And so I think we’re really solving the wrong problem. And in fact, we’re just continuing on with the same thing that’s got us in this problem in the first place. And so I don’t support it for that reason. Particularly, I don’t think it’s really solving the problem.

Exproperating this property since the developers not willing to sell it without this rezoning would be something that would actually address it because we wouldn’t be adding residential. We would be adding the school faster. And it would allow some breathing room after the community to kind of catch up. So the second reason that I really don’t support the development heights or things is a simple issue around fairness, which is we have a lot of developers and landowners who come through with applications.

They want to accelerate their projects. They all want to go quickly. They all want to look into build homes of various kinds. And it’s really important that in the land use process, we treat all of those applicants fairly in the same way.

And there’s a number of things we do around gross servicing, the planning of growth infrastructure, how we stage and implement the things that are needed to support growth. So GMIS, development charges, all of that is just being thrown aside for this particular application. We’re not talking about any projects in the D.C. that would be supportive of this development.

This is a big long-term plan and there’s nothing in there that allows for this kind of development north of Sunningdale to proceed. It wasn’t included in the London plan in terms of developable lands where we’d expect residential to be developed because it’s ground space in the London plan. It wasn’t even appealed. That designation in the London plan that it should be green space.

And as we’re managing through the tremendous growth that’s happening in our community, we need to make sure that we’re doing that in a fair way that’s treating all the various landowners and all the various people who want to build housing the same. And that’s a really important principle that we really need to stick to that. And a lot of this, you know, keying on the school, we accelerate it because it also solves this other problem. We don’t do that for other people and we shouldn’t do that for anybody.

We should treat everybody the same and put them through the same process. You want to build residential subdivision that requires growth infrastructure, you’re going through GMIS. We’re going to plan all the development charges, all the projects need to be done where to figure out the rates are, everyone’s going to pay the same rates. Fair, transparent, open.

You want to adjust the urban growth boundary, bring new lands in, we’ll have a fair open process where people can make their submissions and we can evaluate all the various lands. The particular development, I think actually, whether that actually proposes better than what I thought we might have, we have. We have a lot of good medium density residential and I want to commend the applicant, just by the fact that I don’t like the overall proposal or how it’s being done. I do like that there’s some higher density housing, slightly higher density housing, included in the proposal.

I think that’s an improvement over some of what we’ve seen. But this really needs to be refused. That’s why staff refused the initial application to say, we want to go immediately to zoning for residential. And instead said, here’s a compromise where we will instead put it as future community growth, that will allow us to do a comprehensive plan of the whole area, figure out the servicing, plan a note, do it in an appropriate fair and transparent way that treats everybody the same.

That was a compromise. And I guess, you know, previously in council meetings, a deputy or Morgan said, I’ve never met a compromise I didn’t like. I guess we actually have found an example of one that he doesn’t like, because the compromise was the staff recommendation a long time ago, which was refused the initial application, but allow it move to community growth. And that was unacceptable.

Not good enough, had to pressure on as fast as possible, accelerate the residential development, even faster than what’s already been going on in the area. And if we keep this up, we’re going to need like two, three, four schools in this area, not this one that’s being maybe slightly accelerated. You can hear from the way that other people who are waiting on the application are talking. They don’t feel like they’re being treated fairly.

The likelihood that this is going to get appealed is very high, right? Because people will look at it and say, this isn’t right. And then if it’s appealed, the whole thing is gummed up. How long is that going to take to work its way through?

Maybe it will be supported at the Ontario land tribunal. Maybe it won’t. If it’s not, where’s that going to lead to school board? They should just get on with exporforating the lands that they need for the school.

That’s the area where there’s lots of agreement. That’s the area where there’s no disagreement. Yes, you need land for a school. Go get it.

This actual designation of the lands here to change from open space, agricultural lands, prime agricultural lands that we need. We need those in Ontario, in London. We need to be protecting the prime agricultural lands. That’s speeding up the destruction of agricultural lands as fast as we possibly can.

So I hope you’ll reject it. I’m not very optimistic that it’s going to be rejected, but I hope that by the time we get to council, that’s actually a decision to come to me. To Councillor Helmer. Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. We’ve got a problem here. School board has a problem, but we are two separate entities, but we’re the same city with parents and families, both part of the Thames Valley District School Board, but also Londoners. We received a letter from the Thames Valley District School Board, and I’d like to just read a couple of excerpts from it.

So provide the fastest path forward for a much needed elementary school and licensed childcare center in this part of our community. Goes further on, this is the most expeditious path forward for this new school and childcare center and the service to the children and families of our community. I’m sure they consider the expropriation, but in their opinion, this is the fastest way forward. And time is of the essence here.

We have a school, so Arthur Curry, designed for 530 pupils that have over 1,000 students there, resulting in 22 portables. This is not a tenable situation. If we don’t go down this path, the school population will be served by 22 portables going forward for many years. My feeling from city staff, the biggest problem they initially had or they had, is they would prefer a secondary plan for a development of north of Sunnydale, and this area as there are more lands within our urban growth boundary.

Yeah, I think I would prefer a more cohesive plan amongst neighborhoods. However, as we’ve seen with this report, this is a well thought out small subdivision that can be hooked up to future plans when we get to that point where a secondary plan is developed with this as part of it. This comes at no extra cost to the city. All temporary infrastructure is being picked up by the developer.

I don’t see this as an urban growth boundary question. That question will be coming to council in the years ahead as London is reaching the maximums of the current urban growth boundaries. This land is part of the urban growth boundary. What this does is provide at the end of the day a solution to a situation that needs to be solved on behalf of the parents of their children in this part of the city.

I don’t believe it sets an open door for future development as this is a very unique situation. And I think this is a role of council. It’s a role of council is to understand planning practices and procedures, work with staff, but there are exceptions. And if there, I think this is an example of one of those exceptions.

We need to find a solution here. And to me, this is a reasonable solution that serves all parties. So I will be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

Are there any other comments from the committee for visiting Councillors? Councillor Cassidy, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for recognizing me.

Wasn’t sure if I was going away in. I’m not a member of the committee. So I won’t have a vote tonight, but I will have a vote at council. As Councillor Halmer pointed out, what brought us here tonight was a very close vote of council.

It was something like seven, six. So this has never been something that’s being fully supported this direction, where we are today, what’s before us today. It was, it was not the direction that staff asked to take. We asked staff to take this direction.

We’ve received a lot of information over the year and months that we’ve been considering this. Some of the information that we did receive was the fact that if this school gets built on the quickest timeline possible, by the time it’s built, both Arthur Curry School and this new school will be already beyond capacity because that is the growth pattern as Councillor Halmer pointed out in this area. And then these new residential units being proposed is like throwing gasoline on the fire. So building this school is not going to solve the problem.

I think these residential units in this area at this time is going to make the problem worse. And this new school will not solve the current problem. It will already be beyond capacity. When we talk about sprawl and we talk about the residential building that’s going on in the county, it’s not even comparing the same species of fruit.

It might even be comparing apples to vegetables. When you look at an 80% growth in single family home development in the county, it’s 80% of what is currently there. To compare that to the kind of residential development that exists already in London is disingenuous. London is 2/3 the size geographically of Toronto and only 10% of the population.

We are not the place where we need to build on open space and agricultural land because that is what’s coming down the road. When we allow our policies to be upended, when we allow these back way kind of approaches to getting development approved, it just leads to more of this same kind of thing. And this is exactly what urban sprawl is. Even if we make the developer build all of the infrastructure and all of the utilities and all of the connections that would normally take place through development charges and thoughtful methodical urban development, even if the developer takes all of this on, at some point, these will be city roads.

At some point, this will be city infrastructure and that is what adds to the cost for all of the taxpayers of London. This kind of outward growth means we need more snowplows on the road. It means we will need more libraries and community centers to service these outlying areas instead of taking advantage of the services and infrastructure that already exists within the built up area of London. That doesn’t mean that this area will never be developed.

It means, and based on staffs wanting to go slow with this, it means we’re not ready for this kind of development in this area at this time. So I won’t be supporting this when this comes to council. And again, I see where the committee is going on this and we will see since the last vote was very close, seven, six, it will be interesting to see how this lands at council. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy.

Are there any other comments from committee members or visiting councillors? I see none. Oh, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I just want to make a brief comment and we can discuss whether it’s adequate, whether it’s fully meeting the needs or not. But let’s be clear that when new properties are built and become occupied, the city benefits then from assessment growth, which helps pay for those snow plows plowing more roads for police patrolling more roads, et cetera. In fact, we just approved new hires for the police in the assessment growth that we approved allocations that we approved last month. I do hear through you where Councillor Cassidy was going with the concern about the increasing costs, absolutely, but let’s not make it out that the existing London taxpayer is going to be paying for all of that.

There will be revenue coming in through assessment growth as well. So I’m just going to end my comments there, but I think it’s important to state that those expanded services are funded at least partially through assessment growth. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments?

Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yeah, I just want to clarify one question. It came up through the discussion. Mr.

Stapleton answered that there would be, approximately with some of the caveats that he mentioned, 550 units on the site. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Stapleton, knowing that there’s another application before us, if a school was built on the south side, it would displace some residential development there. So does he have an estimate on what the net new units would be?

Not the total units on this particular parcel of land, but if both of those applications went through to school was built, what would be the net new addition of units in the city? Mr. Stapleton? It would be, yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, it would be less 200 units, roughly 200 units, 225 units, difference. So it would be 550 less, 225. The block 15, large block on the Mount Pleasant property, and the school site on the Kent subdivision are zoned for the density of 75 units per hectare. There’s some inefficiencies on block 15, due to the housing that is within the property.

So the yield approximately the same Mount Pleasant being about 300 units to the max, and the school site would be about 225, because it’s slightly smaller, it’s only 88. We’ll by answer that question. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from committee?

Councillor Halmer. Thank you, sorry, I just wanted to clarify, the new proposed development, it’s got 13 residential blocks, low density residential blocks, some medium density blocks. How many school blocks are there in the new solution? I assume you’re asking me, Councillor Halmer.

Or Mr. Stapleton, Mr. Campbell as well. Okay, sorry, yeah, I actually removed.

So we’ll go ahead, Madam Chair. Hold on, maybe a staff can answer your questions, Mr. or Councillor. I’m sure they can.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So there are no school blocks planned on the new Mount Pleasant subdivision, and there’s just the one in the Kent subdivision being planned at this point. Any other comments, questions?

I see none, I would like to be able to speak from the chair of the committee, will allow me to make my comments. And I want to start off by thanking the public for coming out. I know we heard from you the number of concerns that still remain in the community. I would encourage the community to still be part of this process, whatever that looks like, to continue working with staff, to make sure that you’re part of the process.

I can’t imagine, you know, two years ago, the community had no idea of this subdivision going forward. And it is, I would think quite a surprise. I have a ward that is full of development and infills. And one of the challenges I have is addressing the neighborhood concerns and how we balance growth.

That needs to all be taken into account, and I really do rely on our policies to help me decide how we can move forward. I feel this process, this recommendation that has come before us, is being sort of a surprise to me as well. And I’d like to first of all start off with thanking staff, a lot of work. We had two planners on this recommendation, a lot of work went into this.

There’s numerous holding provisions. I’m not the professional here, I just hope we’ve got them all in here. I haven’t gone through them and pulled them out. I would hope that within the subdivision agreement, we would hold some lands for a future school use, given the challenges that Deputy Morgan spoke to with the need for schooling.

And I feel very responsible for, when this came to council, and council proved this to go forward. I did not support it at the time, that I did support it further back in the process on looking at schools in the area. And I did that because I understand Deputy Morgan’s concerns when it comes to schooling, or nine has the same challenges. I get it, we build a school, and we need a school right after that school is built.

And I applaud him for his advocacy on dealing with the needs, and we always seem to build, build, build. But our social infrastructure is just lagging behind constantly. And I don’t know how we can move that up, but I do feel that I was part of the problem, or not a problem, but I was part of the direction that more or less set this recommendation coming to us tonight, because I did support that we look at schools. I want to go back to the challenges of neighborhoods and how we do the infills and the importance of policies.

And I rely on them. I rely on the London plan, that building in and up. I rely on our development charges, how we determine our development charges. I have applications in my ward, they want development to happen in Phil, but it’s not in the DC formula.

It’s not in our SWAP plan. And somehow we’ve just made this happen. I hear the challenges and concerns. To me, the process was not transparent for me as a counselor, as a member of this committee.

I really do have concerns how we made this happen. I do think I will not be supporting it. This sets a dangerous precedent. Like I said, I have a ward full of development.

How we swap lands now to develop in areas where we have not done sufficient studies is a huge concern for me. So with that, I’ll sort of end on my comments. There’s numerous questions that are left unanswered here. We heard from the community, and I know this will be a debate.

A council will be a close debate. I want to thank staff and the public for their input, and I will see what happens at council, thank you. And I’m looking for a motion, or I think we’ve got a motion on the floor if we come proceed to vote, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Next up is the public participation meeting 3.5 to review the, sorry, just trying to catch up on myself here. There is an application from the Thames Valley District School Board for 1284 Sunningdale Road West. I’d like to open up the public participation meeting. Looking for a mover, a seconder, mover, Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I just want to remind committee members, we did have some revisions for 3.4 that we just approved in as well as this application, 3.5 to revisions and amendments in our bylaws. So I just want to bring that to everyone’s attention. I would like to go to city staff for a quick verbal.

Good evening, three chair Hopkins. This is Alison Curtis again, on behalf of planning and development for item 3.5, which is found on page 393 of the agenda package. I’d just like to note before we get started that the map in the zoning amendment schedule only shows the NF zone, the neighborhood facility zone be applied. It is the NF1 zone.

The amendment schedule has been updated and provided to clerks. So this application is for a zoning bylaw amendment at 1284 Sunningdale Road West. The subject lands are located in the northwest quadrant of the city at the intersection of Sunningdale Road West and Fair Oaks Boulevard and are included in the Fox Hollow community plan. The site is approximately 3.27 hectares in size and is currently vacant but zoned for residential uses.

The lands are described as block 169 of phase five of the Kent subdivision, which is not yet registered. Future residential uses surround the lands to the east, south and west while there are agricultural land uses to the north. This request is the result of council direction on May 25th, 2021 and October 5th, 2021 for staff to assist the Thames Valley District School Board in the process of finding and rezoning lands to accommodate a new elementary school in the northwest. The existing school site that services this area, which is to Arthur Curry, is currently operating above capacity.

The requested amendment is to change the zoning from a holding residential R4, R6, R7 and R8 special provision zone to include the neighborhood facility NF1 zone in order to facilitate the development of a two-story elementary school and daycare center. This block is of a sufficient size and location to accommodate the proposed development and it would integrate into the surrounding neighborhood context. This rezoning is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses. The staff are satisfied that the proposal represents good planning and recommend the by-law be introduced at Municipal Council Meeting to be held on May 3rd, 2022.

Staff are available to address any of your questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to now go to the applicant.

Thank you and through the chair, it is Jeff Vod. I’m the superintendent of Capital Facilities Capital and Planning Lieutenant Ollie School Board and I’m joined this evening by our manager of capital projects, Carlos Enriquez, our manager of planning, Ben Pusnov and one of our planning team members, Eric Miles. And we’re here and happy to answer any questions that may arise from the committee. Thank you.

And I’d like to now go to any technical questions. Councillor Halmer. The parcel that’s being suggested for rezoning is a medium density parcel for any low density parcels considered. Through you, Madam Chair, is the question of Councillor Halmer directed to staff or to the school board?

If I can go to staff. I think it’s probably better for the school boards instead of the applicant. Thank you for the question and through the chair and maybe manager Ben Pusnov might want to add on to this. But essentially within the area of the Ministry of Education approved us for the build of a new school site.

This was the only site that was helpful to us in any way, shape or form. I don’t know if manager Pusnov has anything further down. Madam Chair, thank you, manager. The technical questions.

I could now go to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to the recommendation of changing the zoning to a neighborhood facility. To ask one more time, if there’s anyone from the public that would like to make comments to this recommendation, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time.

If you’d like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. You see none, I’d like to go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman. Seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And if I could go to the committee members for motion comments, sorry, Deputy Mayor Morrigan. Yes, I just wanna say I’m very supportive of this. I think this is the, this side of Sunnydale is the appropriate spot for school, given our staff’s earlier comments on other applications previously.

And I think between this, the new potential Catholic school in the same neighborhood, this is going to add a needed school spaces in a neighborhood that is facing significant overcrowding at the current schools. I also would say not to be discounted, but given the recent signing of the childcare agreement, having a hundred new licensed childcare spaces is certainly an added benefit to this potential. So I know this is just the rezoning, but I look forward to seeing this all approved and us getting a new school and new childcare spaces as soon as possible. Any other comments, emotions?

Councillor Hellner. Just briefly, I think this really illustrates how badly of a whack our planning is for school sites. You know, even you look at what the parcel in front of us actually is. This is basically as far away as you could get from the existing residential neighborhoods right up against a major road.

It’s as far to the north as you could get from everybody who lives south of there already. We’re taking a multi-family, medium density designation and downzoning it to a school. So instead of being 75 units correct, our residential, we’re replacing it with the school. And you could imagine in a well-designed neighborhood, the school would be kind of in the middle and everybody could get to it from all directions and it would be easy to walk there.

And putting it on a major arterial like this, I just showed how far we’ve fallen in terms of like being able to find good sites for schools. This is not a good site. Like this is like, as the school board just described, it’s like this is the only one available. We can’t get anything else.

And that is a huge problem. You know, we had this information report that came forward to community protective services about working together with the schools, school board and the city doing this planning. And, you know, I was asking about opportunities. How are we going to do this better?

But it’s a very bad thing that we’re at this point where, you know, we’re going to prove something that’s on the edge of the existing built area. We just did it in Cedar Hollow a couple of years ago, right up against the urban growth boundary, as far to the east and north as you can imagine, new school site. This one right up against the major arterial. There’s a rural, right now it’s a rural cross section.

Boom, that’s where the new school is going to go. I’m glad to see that it’s going to be integrated childcare. It’s great that it’s two story instead of being one story. I think there’s lots of good things about the proposal and getting a school up in here is definitely needed.

So I’m going to have to think about whether I support the actual rezoning for the school. You know, on the one hand, it’s like so desperately needed. But this is not a good spot, really. Even within the existing neighborhood to locate a school.

You’d want to see it more at the interior of the neighborhood. And, you know, because it’s been so built out already, those options are very difficult. And I understand the buying the school board is in. And it’s not really the school board’s fault.

I don’t think, I mean, setting aside that they’re not willing to expropriate it, apparently. The province’s fault, like the money has to come much earlier to be able to acquire these sites and build the schools, much earlier in the process site. You see, Councillor Hillier, you know, on the screen, I’m thinking about the amount of time that people on the summer side had to wait for a school. You know, they had a school site ready to go.

Just wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. And, you know, that’s not working. That’s not a process that’s working well. And, you know, I don’t want to take it out on the school board, all my frustrations with the overall process or, frankly, the developer who’s insisting on the previous issue in order to give the land, sell the land, I should say, to make this even possible.

But I do think it’s a sign of a process that’s really not working well, especially in the high growth areas and areas that are, you know, relatively newly constructed. I’m not even getting into the disinvestment and abandoning of the core areas where we got schools being closed and then in a very ironic and disturbing turn of events, expanding the yard at the other school and knocking over a bunch of houses in order to do it, existing houses that were already there, being demolished to make way for a bigger school yard. So I think there’s a lot of process improvements that could be made. I think the promise is gonna lead by doing the capital financing much, much better.

So the school boards know what they can work with and actually have the opportunities in front of them when they’re presented. But we need to make sure that we’re providing appropriate school sites for all these neighborhoods. You know, I will give credit to all the counselors in this urban area. It’s like they’ve been trying to make this process better, improve it all the way along.

And I think this is a really good example of how bad things are that we’re settling for a school site like this, which would be so far away from the people who are further to the south. And this is probably one of many schools that we needed in this area. You have a comment? So if the committee will allow me just to make a comment here and I do really think we are settling here and I didn’t support this direction and I’m going to be consistent.

That’s not to say that I can change my mind before a council when it comes to approving this site. But I have grave concerns on the process that we’ve undertaken to get to this point. I appreciate that we’ve got some daycare centers that our infrastructure when it comes to schools is lagging so far behind as we build, build. And I do think that this is the beginning of more conversations to come.

And I have concerns. It feels like the middle of our city is empty now. We’ve got that heavy weight around the areas, the outside areas, the suburban areas. And the need for housing is there but how we build these schools, I’m glad to know that there are members from the Thames Valley District School Board here.

I think we do need to have more communication. I appreciate their letter and their comments at how we can have more engagement and not be reacting but having planning. This is the planning and environment committee. And it just seems that we’re reacting more than we’re planning when it comes to this application.

So for now, I won’t be supporting it. And with that, there is a motion. I know I’m just waiting for committee members to move it along. So we do have a, I know.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Lehman. That we can vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to one.

Members, I know it’s been a long evening. We’ve got a few more items. If we can proceed, just wanna get some nods. So moving on to items for direction.

4.1 is the Urban Agricultural Strategy 2021 Annual Report. There is a request for delegation status as well. So I know we are going to be asking to receive and approve the report. And do we go with that first and then go with the delegation request?

I just wanna ask staff the process here, or can it be done at once? Can you please approve the, or approve or deny the delegation request before you approve the staff report, please? Okay, so I’ll go to committee members. And I understand that there is, there is Laura Thorn from the Urban Roots of London doing the delegation request and she is here.

I just wanna come for, yes, she is. Councillor Lewis and Councillor Lehman. So we are approving the delegation request. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

I’d like to, first of all, go to Laura Thorn. If you are here, if you can hear me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, and I just want to remind you that you have up to five minutes, so welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Planning Environment Committee for this opportunity to speak. My name is Laura Thorn and I’m the Director of Organizational Development. I’m speaking on behalf of Urban Roots London, a member of the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee.

We have asked through the Steering Committee for the Planning and Environmental Committee to consider our request to ask Council to direct city staff to provide a report to the Planning and Environmental Committee about the use of city land for urban agriculture. In March 2022, City Council approved a licensing agreement for the creation of a food hub in Cavendish Park. This project is an exciting step in bringing the Urban Agricultural Strategy forward and we applaud the efforts of everyone involved. However, it is unclear how and why this project to be involved organizations were able to access this opportunity when others in the city have been denied the same opportunities.

In the past, as recently as fall of 2021, when organizations, including those led by underserved and underrepresented populations, have approached the city to grow food for consumption on city-owned lands such as parks. They have been told that the city doesn’t license land for urban agriculture or that there isn’t a process in place at this time that would allow them to do so. It is critical that the city of London ensures a fair and equitable process is used when determining who can access city-owned land for food production. And so that other organizations and community groups have a clear understanding of that process.

So we’re considering, or we are asking that you consider our request to direct city staff to develop a report that includes a clear process to apply to use city-owned land for urban agriculture, an inventory of available land and a process to work with city staff to inquire about said land, a standard licensing agreement and a standard rate in length for a licensing agreement, a transparent and equitable approach to determine who can enter into agreements, standards for expected outcomes and uses of the city land to ensure productivity and impact, and ways to ensure costs of this process is low to reduce financial barriers for organizations trying to grow food for their communities. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have for this request. Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

I would like to now go to the committee for comments. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’ll start by saying to our guests, I’ve volunteered a couple of times out at the urban roots farm, and I’ve purchased some produce as well as joining you for the annual dinners. I appreciate the work you’re doing.

It’s a great organization, and it’s really rewarding the way that the community is involved in it in my view. So thank you for that. You did mention, and I’m generally supportive of the ask you’re making to prepare a report on how we could proceed with using some city lands for this purpose. One of the things that you mentioned that was a standardized lease and cost agreements, usage agreements, outcomes, but you also mentioned the rather diverse groups and under-service groups that might be looking for opportunities.

Do you feel that a standardized approach is best, or do you see that only as a template that would be altered along the way, depending on the approach? Because I think we may have some very active groups, we may have some much smaller groups, so I’m just trying to get your thoughts on whether a standardized approach is best, or whether it would be better to have something that staff work on on a case-by-case basis. Thorne? Yes, thank you for that question.

I think that you bring up a really excellent point about ensuring that it’s an equitable process and understanding that everyone’s needs will be different. I think having a minimum, maybe instead of standard, would be a better way to put it or arrange, just to give people an idea of what’s actually possible, but that answers your question. That does, and thank you very much. That’s helpful for me to consider going forward.

Thank you. Any other comments from the committee? So there is a request here for Emotion to get a report back, and I’m not sure if I can do that from this chair. I don’t think I can.

So committee members, thank you. Councillor Lewis. I’m happy to support this Madam Chair, and I’m happy to move a motion that requests civic administration prepare and return a report to PEC that would provide us some options on a process that would allow the use of city-owned land for urban agriculture. If the clerk is able to, I know it was in the letter that we received in our package, but if we can include the, including but not limited to an inventory of available land, a transparent and equitable approach to determining who can enter into agreements as standard expected outcomes, and perhaps a minimum licensing agreement and rates, knowing that staff may have a variety of pieces of input to provide to us, and we may actually get something back that says, here are 10 or 12 different options even, but if staff could include in their report, those bullet points that were outlined in our communication, that would be helpful.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. So you’re agreeable with the bullet points that were provided, and hopefully giving staff direction on looking at other possibilities as well. So thank you for that, and we do have a secondary Councillor Hillier, and I’m not sure if we’ve given enough time with the clerk to get everything done. Any other comments?

Councillor Lewis. Well, I will just, I’m just gonna add, I really appreciate this being brought forward, both by the Urban Agricultural Steering Committee and by urban roots tonight, because I think that there is some land, some city owned land within our municipal boundaries that would provide a real opportunity. And I think when people are connected to how their food is grown and produced, it actually is a benefit to society as a whole. I think we often get disconnected from that.

And so, I’ve often heard from constituents, why don’t we plant more fruiting trees in our parks, and then people can just help themselves to that apple or whatever it happens to be. And I realize that there are some challenges around just having that everywhere, and those range from pest control, to suitability of the soil, to other uses that are happening in the parks. But I don’t think that that’s consistent with all of our land. I think there’s some opportunities for that.

And so, I do, and I know staff will have to put a fair amount of work into this. I know it’s not something that they’ll turn around and bring back to us, you know, cycler too. But I hope that it’s given some thought, and I look forward to hearing also, when it comes back to us, the community’s feedback on how this might be refined to move forward. Thank you for those comments, Councillor Lewis.

And if the committee will allow me just to make a brief comment. I’m very supportive of hitting a report back. If the pandemic has taught us that anything is the importance of urban agriculture, I wanna thank staff for the annual report. If you look at it, there’s a lot of things that are going on in our community, and it is the pandemic has taught us that we need to be sustainable and rely on our own sources of food and food as much as possible.

So I’m looking forward to this report back. And I wanna thank the community for their advocacy and keeping the conversation in front of us as well. So with that, can we proceed to vote? Sorry, Madam Chair, if I may.

Mr. Barrett, sorry, I didn’t recognize your hand. Thank you. Sorry, Madam Chair.

I was wanted to ask would be in your recommendation that it not be specific that we come back to PEC. A lot of these lands actually would be covered under the Parks and Rec By-law. And so wanting to be able to follow up and follow through on the direction and the requests that’s come through the final report might not end up coming back to PEC. And right now your motion says to come back here.

So if it could be just directed to staff to be reported back, that might be a little bit clearer. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for your comments and Councillor Lewis, I’ll go to you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, actually, I appreciate Mr. Barrett raising that because as I was reading what the clerk had up, I thought Ms. Smith and neighborhood children and fire services might have a fair amount of work to do in this and I recognize that the parks folks may as well. So I wonder if we might just change it to say requested to report back at a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee.

Thank you for those changes, Councillor Lewis. Now if I need to read it for the public and the public see the motion. I see it, I’ll just read it. I’m just waiting for it to come up and having difficulty reading it.

Yes, please. The motion is that the civic administration be requested to report back at a future meeting of the appropriate standing committee, including but not limited to. The civic administration apply to use city-owned land for urban agriculture, an inventory of available land and a process to work with civic administration to inquire, a standard licensing agreement and a standard rate for a licensing agreement, a transparent and equitable approach to determine who can enter into agreements. Standards for expected outcomes and uses of the city land to ensure productivity and impact and ensure cost of this process is low.

And without we’ve got a motion. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Committee and moving on to 4.2. This is Mayor Holder’s UNESCO designation.

London is Canada’s city of music. Just wondering if I could go to committee members or maybe I should go to staff just for any concerns with the suggested motion that’s before us. Through the chair, thank you very much. The resolution is clear and so we don’t have any concerns with the notice, the recommendation is presented.

Thank you, Mr. Mathers. And with that, I’ll go to committee. Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. About three weeks ago, I had an enjoyable afternoon down at the Richmond Tavern with some friends listening to a great London local band, Newport Electric. They play around the city. I strongly suggest you check them out.

They’re fantastic. It was the first time I was out listening to live music in about two years because of COVID. And I was in a very reflective mood maybe because of the music, maybe because the environment is a full house and the place is rocking and it was a very happy time. And I thought, here I am down in downtown London listening to live music.

And I thought maybe because I’m a counselor that I thought on the UNESCO’s recent designation of London being Canada’s city of music. We’ve had some great music venues, you know, in my time. They’re not here, fry-fogles, call the office, London Music Club, and then even go back as far as Wonderland Gardens with Guy Lombardo. We have now some fantastic places, Bud Weiser Gardens, The Only in Hall, London Music Hall, the Grand Theatre, and Richmond Tavern and such others.

We’ve had challenges with our core as we all know. We think address those wholeheartedly when we first came to this term and initiatives such as the Coordinated Inform Response and core initiatives really kind of got put out of their heels when COVID hit. But now that we’re coming out, I’m confident that they will be a tool to get our core where we want it. Add to that the amount of residential development that’s going on downtown.

Fantastic. From a point of view of reinvigorating the core. If you look at strong city cores in North America, a lot of them are built around entertainment. I think we have an opportunity here to leverage this recent UNESCO designation to get kind of a city direction, to re-engineize Dundas Street and the surrounding areas, with kind of a city hall vision of what could be.

So these are the things that I was thinking of. And then when I saw the mayor’s letter and suggestion, I thought how timely. I think I would appreciate hearing from staff on what an entertainment district would look like and what that means, what are the boundaries, what are the positives, concerns, et cetera. But I think we have an opportunity here to really get some momentum to bring back our core.

So that’s why I am supportive of the mayor’s initiatives mentioned in his letter. And I would like to motion that be put on the floor, please. Looking for a secondary in Councillor Lewis. Councillor Lewis, oh, sorry, I assume you’re seconding.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, I’ll second. And I’ll just offer really a brief comment as well. I’m not vintage enough, funnily, Councillor Lehman, I guess, to remember Wonderland Gardens and Guy Lombardo.

But nonetheless, I think that when I see this, I think about the future. And I think about the successful downtown core is in major cities, both in North America and around the world. Entertainment is what really drives those to be successful. The era of the downtown core being the retail hub.

And while retail, niche retail in particular, will continue to play an important role. But sort of the era of the big department store chain retailers being in the core is gone. And so for the cores to reinvent themselves as entertainment districts, as places where people come to enjoy a meal, to enjoy music, to enjoy theater, those are the future of our downtown cores. And so I support where the mayor is going with this request to us, and I’m happy to second the motion and look forward to seeing what staff bring back in terms of what an entertainment district for London might look like.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis, Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, and this is one of the reasons I came tonight to the meeting on behalf of Mayor Volder. This is something that the mayor mentioned in his state of the city speech. And this really builds on the UNESCO designation as Canada’s first and only so far city of music.

And also our opportunity to build momentum with the community. This is the idea of London as a music city can be embraced not just by the municipal government, but by organizations and individuals across the city. And one of the things I’ll point to you is next week the London Chamber of Commerce has Creative Industries Summit at the Grand Theatre, where we will hear from individuals about music and its importance to the city how this supports a vibrant economy and what can be done to support it. So I think that this is certainly one of the rules that municipal government can take is getting a report back on seeing what our role is in the creation of an entertainment district.

And it’s probably the first of many moves that we can make to support our designation as a city of music. So I know Mayor Volder would have loved to be here to pitch this himself, but I’m hopeful the community will be supportive and vote for this tonight. So thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Any other comments? You see none, I would like to make a comment from the chair. If the committee will allow me and Councillor Lewis, I do remember Wonderland Gardens. I’m a little bit older than Councillor Lehman.

I am generally supportive of the direction here. The core area entertainment, I assume, just will take place in the core area of our city. But I think it’s also important to know that we have many areas throughout the city that celebrate music, Spring Bank Park. There’s other areas throughout our city that has these festivals that are also important and shouldn’t be denied the opportunities to celebrate music.

We know that music is fundamental to a health and well-being. So I am generally supportive of this moving forward, even though it just addresses the core area, entertainment district and what that looks like. But I just wanted to make those comments the importance of having opportunities throughout our city to celebrate music is also important. So thank you.

And with that, we do have a motion. We can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0. Five deferred matters, additional business, I see none.

And I’m looking at committee to adjourn. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Could we do a hand vote? All those in favor?

Thank you. The motion carries 4 to 0. Thanks, everyone.