May 9, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:01 PM, with Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair, Councillors S. Lewis and S. Lehman present and all other members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That Items 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

2022-04-21 EEPAC Report - FULL

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 21, 2022:

a)  the Working Group report relating to the property located at 7098-7118 Kilbourne Road BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b) the Working Group report relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)  on the advice of the Civic Administration, the proposed draft Goldfish brochure BE FORWARDED to the new Ecological Community Advisory Committee for discussion, and to Corporate Communications for review;

d) on the advice of the Civic Administration, the Wetland Relocation Lessons Learned document BE PROVIDED to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee for discussion;

e)  the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 1349 Western Road BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

f) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road (P-9488)

2022-05-09 PEC SR 1345 Cranbrook Rd and 1005 Longworth Rd - P-9488

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Craig Linton (Norquay Developments), to exempt lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, legally described as Blocks 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657, 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 May 9, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at a future Municipal Council meeting, to exempt Block 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657 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 further noting that the applicant has applied for a zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning of the subject lands from an Urban Reserve UR2 Zone to a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone in Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to permit single detached dwellings;

b) the following conditions of approval BE REQUIRED to be completed prior to the passage of a Part-Lot Control By-law for Blocks 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657, as noted in clause a) above:

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

ii) that appropriate zoning shall be in effect for the subject blocks, prior to passage of the Part-Lot Control By-law;

iii)  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;

iv) 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;

v)  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;

vi) 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;

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

viii)  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;

ix)  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;

x)  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;

xi) 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;

xii)  the applicant shall obtain clearance from the City that requirements v), vi) and vii) 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;

xiii) 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; and,

xiv)   the applicant shall register on title and include in all Purchase and Sale Agreements for the lot at the northeast corner of Cranbrook Road and Longworth Road, identified as Part 8 on the draft reference plan, a requirement that the purchaser/home builder provide concept plans and elevations prior to the application for a building permit which demonstrate that both elevations facing the streets (the front and exterior side elevations) are designed as front elevations. Both elevations should be constructed to have a similar level of architectural details (materials, windows (size and amount) and design features, such as but not limited to porches, wrap-around materials and features, or other architectural elements that provide for street-oriented design) and limited chain link or decorative fencing along no more than 50% of the exterior side-yard abutting the exterior side-yard frontage, to the satisfaction of the City.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

2.4   Building Division Monthly Report - February, 2022

2022-05-09 SR Building Division Monthly Report - February 2022

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

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

Motion Passed

2.2   Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Financial Incentives Program 5-Year Review

2022-05-09 PEC SR Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentives Program 5-Year Review

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the evaluation of Community Improvement Plan incentives:

 

a) the staff report dated May 9, 2022 entitled “Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Financial Incentive Programs 5-Year Review”, with respect to the evaluation of Community Improvement Plan incentives, BE RECEIVED;

 

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with a comprehensive review, including a sensitivity analysis, of the City’s existing Community Improvement Plans and associated financial incentives; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting with preliminary information for the 2024-2027 multi-year Budget.   (2022-D19)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road (39CD-22501)

2022-05-09 PEC SR 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road - 39CD-22501

Moved by S. Turner

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 2831570 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road:

a)  the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road; and,

b)  the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 3101 Petty Road and 3047 White Oak Road;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   3557 Colonel Talbot Road (39CD-21519)

2022-05-09 PEC SR 3557 Colonel Talbot Road - 39CD-21519

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 2749282 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road, relating to uncertainty relating to the common element; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 3557 Colonel Talbot Road;

i)    concerns with respect to the lack of a proposed fence on the south side of the property; and,

ii)    uncertainty relating to the common element;

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

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

  •    N. Khamidbayev, 3596 Isaac Court.   (2022-D07)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road (Z-9487)

2022-05-09 PEC SR 1345 Cranbrook Rd and 1005 Longworth Rd - Z-9487

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Craig Linton (Norquay Developments), relating to lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM an Urban Reserve UR2 Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-8(  )) Zone;

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

*  C. Linton, Norquay Developments;

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 single detached dwellings which are appropriate and compatible with existing and future planned development in the area, and consistent with  zoning applied to residential uses along Cranbrook Road and Longworth Road within Crestwood West Subdivision - Phase 2.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street - Revised Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (39CD-21522)

2022-05-09 PEC SR 346 370 and 392 South Street and 351 272 and 385 Hill Street - 39CD-21522

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 of Vision SoHo Alliance relating to the properties located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to a property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street; and,

b)  the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   1140 Fanshawe Park Road East (39T-07502 / OZ-9473)

2022-05-09 PEC SR 1140 Fanshawe Pk Rd E - 39T-07502-OZ-9473

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Drewlo Holdings Inc, relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)  the request to amend the 1989 Official Plan to change the designation on Schedule “A” – Land Use on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Low-Density Residential designation along Sunningdale Road East TO a Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential designation, BE REFUSED;

b)    the request to amend the 1989 Official Plan change the designation on Schedule “A” – Land Use on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Low-Density Residential designation TO an Open Space designation, BE REFUSED;

c)    the request to amend The London Plan to change the place type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Green Space Place Type TO a Neighbourhoods Place Type, BE REFUSED;

d)    the request to amend The London Plan to change the place type on a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type, BE REFUSED;

e)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2UR3) Zone, Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, TO a Bonus Residential R8 Special Provision (B-_R8-4()) Zone, Residential R5 (R5-7) Zone, Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3()) Zone, Residential R1 (R1-2) Zone, Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone BE REFUSED;

f)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East:

i)    concerns with respect to the increase in traffic;

ii)    concerns with respect to the increase in noise;

iii)    relating to the road widening around Nicole Avenue, wondering if it is possible to relocate where Nicole Avenue exits as there are other properties along Sunningdale Road East that do not have housing directly across the road;

iv)    enquiring if the City intends to add sewers;

v)    relating to Block 34, requesting that the provision of yard depth be provided in order to accommodate a landscaped buffer for screening from the residential properties on the north side of Sunningdale Road East; and,

vi)    consideration be given for the aesthetics for homeowners in these existing properties by way of an aesthetic looking fencing, street orientated windows to ensure existing property owners are not looking into the backyards; and,

g)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council does not support issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (File No. 39T-07502), prepared by MTE, which shows 18 low density blocks, six (6) medium-density residential blocks, two (2) school blocks, and three (3) open space blocks including one (1) open space block for the compensation and relocation of an existing Provincially Significant Wetland, seven (7) new access points at Sunningdale Road East, Savannah Drive, Nicole Avenue, Devos Drive, Blackwell Boulevard, Stackhouse Avenue and Fanshawe Park Road East as well as five (5) internal streets;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

-    the revised staff recommendation;

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

-    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings; and,

-    L-A. Gill, 1468 Sunningdale Road East;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments propose development within a Provincially Significant Wetland;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments do not conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the policies of the Neighbourhoods and Green Space Place Type and to the Our Strategy, Our City and the Key Directions;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments do not conform to The London Plan or the 1989 Official Plan.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.6   Revised Victoria Park Secondary Plan (O-8978)

2022-05-09 Victoria Park Secondary Plan _May 2022 - Full

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO ADOPT the Victoria Park Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “A”, Schedule 1;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO ADD the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to Policy 1565, the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan by ADDING the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

d)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan, 2016, The London Plan TO AMEND Policy 1038 to add clarity for the application of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to the lands in the Woodfield Neighbourhood Specific Policy Area;

e)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 TO AMEND the Official Plan (1989), as follows:

i)    AMEND Section 20.2 TO ADD the Victoria Park Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans; 

ii)    ADD Section 20.10 the Victoria Park Secondary Plan; 

iii)    ADD the naming and delineation of the “Victoria Park Secondary Plan” to Schedule “D” – Planning Areas.

f) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 9, 2022 as Appendix “F” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 24, 2022 to amend the Official Plan (1989) TO AMEND Section 3.5.4 – Woodfield Neighbourhood to add clarity to the application of the policy for the area subject to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan;

g) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to evaluate the properties in the block bounded by Richmond Street, Central Avenue, Wellington Street, and Hyman Street for designation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act;

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

-    a communication from B. Lansink;

-    a communication from H. Handy, Vice President, GSP Group Inc.;

-    a communication from S. Stapleton Vice President, Auburn Developments; and,

-    a communication from C. Kulchycki, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    H. Handy, GSP Group, on behalf of 560 Wellington Holdings Inc.;

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of St. Peter’s Cathedral and the Roman Catholic Diocese of London;

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd, on behalf of Great West Life;

-     B. Lansink, 505 Colborne Street;

-     M.A. Hodge, 310 Wolfe Street;

-     A.M. Valastro; and,

-     G. Bruzas, 568 Wellington Street.

(2022-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters

2022-05-09 - DEFERRED MATTERS

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

That the Deferred Matters List for the Planning and Environment Committee, as at May 1, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:37 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 41 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 10th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. I would like to, first of all, start off and do our Indigenous acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabic, the Haudenosaunee, the Lee Epuok, and the Edwandran. We honor and respect the history and language and culture of the diverse Indigenous people who call this territory home.

The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. 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 servers, 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 we get started, I’d like to advise committee members that councilor Hillier will not be joining us this evening, and I understand the acting mayor, Morgan, is not with us at this moment.

So with that, I would like to go to number one, disclosures of pecuniary interest, if there are any. I see none. Moving on now to the consent items. Are there any consent items from committee members wishing to be pulled?

Councilor Turner. I have 2.2, the community improvement plan, the financial incentives review. Is that, are there any others to be pulled? I see none.

So I’m looking for a motion for 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4. Councillor Layman moves it, and Councillor Turner seconds. Any comments from committee members? I see none, and with that, we’ll vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, or to zero. 2.2, which is the community improvement plan financial incentives. This is the five-year review we’re receiving, and there will be a report back. Councillor Turner did pull this.

Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. Three to staff. In the, there’s three goals, or three questions to be addressed by the CIP review.

One of the goals and objectives is the CIP still valid by the financial incentive programs meeting the goals and objectives of the city’s strategic plan, and should the boundary of the areas eligible from financial incentives be amended. I think one of the most important questions, and it’s not explicitly mentioned here, is the conducting of a sensitivity analysis on our incentives. That might fall under the financial incentive programs meeting the goals and objectives, but, and maybe in 2A, where the return on investment of the programs for public investment in downtown and urban areas. Specifically, I was looking to staff to see if you might comment on making sure that the incentives are right-sized.

If we have 100% discount on the development charges in the downtown CIP, versus 90%, versus 80%, versus 70%, at what point do we realize the best return on investment? And is there a way to test that? Because I think that’s really important, and it’s one of the things that, every time we come up to the CIP’s I’ve been asking about, and I don’t see it reflected here. So, perhaps three amount of chair to staff for a bit of comment on that.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I believe that’s a very reasonable request for us to do through this process. I’ve heard the same types of comments from the Ray Pairs associations as well.

So, we just wanna make sure that what we’re spending, that we’re actually getting value out of it. And that sensitivity analysis, I think would be an appropriate way to do that. It may be a little bit tricky because we don’t have a lot of data under, without having that amount of 100%, but I think that’s something at least in a qualitative way we can do, but I think that’s a reasonable request. So, we can include that as part of our reporting back to council.

Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

Then I would move this with that amendment, that is sensitive to the analysis being included in the analysis. And I am looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis. And if we can just have a moment so the clerk can add it to the recommendation, I would assume it would be as a decals. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair and through you, I think Councillor Turner’s got an excellent point here that deserves review. And I just wanna ensure as I’m seconding this, that staff are gonna be reviewing all of our CIP areas in this review process so that we’re making sure that the right sizing is happening across the board. So, it’s not just in the downtown, but that incentives in places like Argyle and Myward or in other areas where CIPs are in effect are coming into effect that we’re reviewing how effective they’ve been in terms of right sizing as well. Because I too share the thought that perhaps 90% in the downtown might be just as effective as 100% and in other areas of the city, the ratios might be better.

So, just through you to our staff, if we can confirm that this will look at all CIP areas active in the city. Thank you for the question. I’ll go to Mr. Mathers again.

You did chair, yes, this will be, this analysis will be considering all the CIP areas. So, it wouldn’t be a problem to also consider sensitive analysis in some of the other areas as well. Thank you for that. And I will now go to Councillor Lane.

Thank you. I think this is a good amendment for clarifies, but we’re hoping to get back from the financial review, which I support in the beginning, because I think it’s very important when we make decisions in our next multi-year, budget of those Councillors’ task with that. We’ll see where are we getting the best bang for our buck. These are significant investments to go ahead with it.

And now we’re starting to, I think, lay the groundwork and some numbers and get a history where we can see how we can be most effective at achieving the goals of council. Thank you for those comments. And are we ready to vote? Don’t you go to the clerk?

It’s a draft in front of us, and it will come back to us at council with changes. Madam Chair, I might just clarify your last comments. So it won’t be reflected in motion here, but it will be changed in time for the council meeting. Is that correct?

I was gonna ask the same question to the clerk. Through you, Madam Chair, yes, that is correct. If that’s how it’s factored committee members. I trust the clerk, thank you.

Thank you. We can proceed to vote. As in the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero.

We are moving on to our scheduled items. The first one is 3.1, which is a public participation meeting for a draft plan of vacant land condominium for 3-1-0-1. Petty Road and 3-0-4-7 White Oak Road. I’m looking to committee to open it up.

Councillor Layman, seconded by. Councillor Turner. As in the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero.

Public participation meeting to report to the approval authority of any issues raised to the public, through this public participation meeting. I wonder if I could just go to staff for a very quick variable. Chair, it’s Bruce Page. The application is for a vacant land condominium that’s located in the southern portion of the city.

It’s just south of Southdale and just west of White Oak Road. The applicant’s proposing 33 townhouse units being with access off of Petty Road. Thank you. Any technical questions?

I see none. I would like to go to the applicant’s consultant. I understand he is here. Mr.

Allen, if you can announce yourself and you have that for two, five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m an MHBC planning. We’re acting on behalf of the applicant.

This time, we’d like to express our support for the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report, which is prepared by Mr. McSula. I in particular, we agree withclusions set out the report that the proposed vacant land condominium layout is appropriate for the site, consistent with applicable planning policies and implements the approved zoning for the lands. Just to clarify, we support and agree with those conclusions.

With approval of application, Madam Chair, the applicant tends to finalize site plan approval and proceed to site construction hopefully this summer. And finally, I’d like to thank staff for their assistance with this application. Thank you for your consideration. We’d like to answer any questions any members may have.

  • Thank you, Mr. Allen. I’d like to go to the public now. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application, please come forward.

If not, I’d like to ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. I’ll ask one last time. There’s anyone that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward.

I see none. I would like to now go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. Closing the vote, the motion carries.

Board is zero. We thought I’d like to go to committee members for comments, a motion. Also turn. I’ll move to the staff recommendation.

There really isn’t one here. It’s more report to any items that come up. Thank you for that. And seconded by Councillor Layman.

I see no other comments from committee members. I’d like to proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero.

And moving on now to 3.2, which is a public participation meeting for a draft plan of vacant land condo 4357 Colonel Town Road. Again, this PPM is to report to the approval authority of any issues raised at the public participation meeting. That I am looking for someone to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Closing the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero. Thank you. I would like to now just go to staff for a very quick variable.

Madam Chair, it’s Bruce Page again. Again, very quickly, it’s a vacant land condo application. That’s located in the southwest portion of the city. It’s located just south of Clayton Walk and on the west side of Colonel Talbot.

The application is for 21 unit vacant land condo, which would be in the form of story tax, two story townhouses. Its access would be off Colonel Talbot. And there is a small park piece located south of the property, which will provide a pathway connection to lands to the west. Thank you.

Any technical questions? In none, I’d like to now go to the applicant or consultant. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. It’s Matt Campbell from Zelica Priemel.

Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Mr. Campbell, welcome.

And you have up to five minutes. Wonderful. Thank you very much. The committee, there’s been quite a bit of history with this site.

And we’ve worked with both the city, the community, and the conservation authority to propose a development on this site, which has received site plan approval. And the present application before you is simply to provide an alternative form of ownership for this site. So the one thing that I would like to stress to the committee is that, again, this site is already site plan approved. Some construction works have already started.

And meaningful construction on the units isn’t going to proceed until the condo is approved. There are no changes to the approved site plan. And the site plan that is provided in the staff report is fully intended to move forward. But I’m happy to answer any questions that the committee or members of the public may have and certainly agree with the staff’s recommendation for approval on this.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I’d like to now go to the public.

If there’s anyone here that would like to make comments to this public participation meeting, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application for a draft plan of vacant land condominium, please come forward. I see Nana, I will now go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Oh, just one moment before I do.

I’m sorry, I was just going to go to the clerk, but I just heard a voice. If you can, would you like to speak to? Hello, my name is Natalia. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can. If you can also, if you wish to add your address, and just to let you know, you have up to five minutes. Thank you. My name is Natalia and I’m owner of 3596 ISA court.

My husband and I, we have a couple of concerns. I’m not sure if those concerns have been already raised on the previous meetings, but in particular, we have questions about south portion of the lot. So we understand that there are going to be some fans on the north side of the lot and east side, but we couldn’t find any information if there are going to be any fans on the south portion of the lot. Because the second portion of the condominium units they’re going to face our backyard.

They’re going to be also a common element and we’re not sure what a common element represents. If the builder can explain more, that would be greatly appreciated. And do you have any further comments as well? If you’ve got any comments, so this is for a draft plan of vacant land condominium approval with any issues to it being converted over.

That’s what the public participation meeting is. We can ask staff the questions that you have just asked once we close it, but that’s usually a side plan question. But for now, if there’s no further comments from you? No, no further comments.

Okay, thank you. I’d like to now ask if there’s anyone else from the public that would like to speak to the draft plan of vacant land condominium on the public. So you now now go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. And just before I go to committee, I will ask staff, I know the question related to a side plan on this. And we’ve already had the side plan public participation meeting. I’m wondering if we can, since the public has attended this public participation meeting, if they can reach out to staff and who they reach out to.

If staff can respond regarding the questions around offense. Through you, Madam Chair, it’s Bruce Page speaking. Just looking at the side plan applicant or side plan that’s included within the staff report, there appears to be a hedge on the, on the west side of the property, not only in Bivian is the side plan officer that has been assigned to the filing. If the neighboring property owner wanted to reach out to her, she can.

But it would appear that the hedges being stated that there isn’t a fence actually in there, the existing hedges is what’s screening the, the rehearer yard and what would be sort of the westerly side yard of this development. Okay, thank you, Mr. Page for answering question. And I would encourage the resident to reach out to the planner, Melanie Bivian to follow up on any other concerns and questions that she may have.

With that, I’d like to go to committee to, for comments or for a motion. Councillor Lewis. I’ll move the staff recommendation. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman.

And for that, without, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you. Moving on now, we’re gonna go to 3.3, which is a public participation meeting for zoning application for 13.45 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road.

I came to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. And I’d like to proceed right to the public and ask if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the recommendation before us please come forward.

Again, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. Last time, please come forward if you’d like to speak to this recommendation. Here and see none, I’m with, oh, just one moment. Mr.

Linton, are you here for this item? No, to say thank you through the chair to the staff. That was it. Thank you for being here, Mr.

Linton. Thank you for coming forward. And with that, I will go to committee and ask to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. And with that, I’ll go to committee members for comments and motion. Councillor Layman. I’ll move the staff recommendation.

And I’m looking for a seconder. Councillor Turner, no further comments. We’ll proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

So we are now moving on to 3.4. And I just want to make sure our timing is good. So 3.4 is a public participation meeting for a draft plan of vacant land condo. Hold on, I just want to make sure I’ve got my numbers correct here.

3.4. We just need to have three more minutes. Am I a little bit ahead? So I’m at 3.4 and we’re at four o’clock.

My goal, you correct. I think we’re good. Thank you for keeping an eye on me too. So we’re going to go to 3.4, which is a public participation meeting.

Not four, three, four, six, three, seven, eight, and three 92 South Street and three 51, three 73 and three 85 Hill Street. This is on a revised draft plan of vacant land condominium. I’m looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. And I’d like to just go to staff for a very quick verbal on this one. Good afternoon. Through you Chair Hopkins, this is Alison Curtis on behalf of planning and development for item 3.4, which is found on page 91 of the agenda package.

This application is for a draft plan of vacant land condominium at 346, 370 and 392 South Street and 351, 373 and 385 Hill Street. The subject lands were previously the site of the Old Victoria Hospital and are approximately 1.89 hectares in size. Two buildings remain on site. The Victoria Health Services Building and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital, both of which are now designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and will be conserved, repurposed, and integrated into the proposed development.

This application was presented previously to the planning environment committee on February 7th, 2022. And the request was for consideration of a stratified vacant land condominium with driveways above ground shared parking areas, underground parking facilities and upgrade outdoor amenity areas as common elements. Following the issuance of a council resolution, a draft approval report and draft conditions were prepared. It is required as a condition of draft approval that a detailed estimate of the cost to install and provide the facilities and services included in the common elements be calculated and the associated securities be provided to the city, should all facilities and services not be installed prior to final approval.

This will allow the city to complete construction of these facilities should the applicants be unable. The underground parking garage to be included in the common elements required a substantial amount of security to be provided to the city and the applicant advised that this condition would be difficult to satisfy. As such, the application has been amended so that the unit boundaries include the underground parking structure and it is no longer a part of the common element. The effect of this revised application is to consider a proposed vacant land condominium comprised of six units, each containing one low or mid-rise apartment building and underground parking facilities.

These six units will be owned by the individual members of the Vision SoHo Alliance, but their proposal will be registered as one condominium corporation. Common elements will include driveways, above ground shared parking areas and upgrade outdoor amenity areas. Two of their proposed units will follow the boundaries of the Victoria Health Services Building and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital. A total of 494 residential units are proposed, which is 243 units per hectare, and the proposal provides a range of affordable rental options in the SoHo community.

The underground parking facility will be one structure comprised of four sections, each under the ownership of and following the same unit boundaries as units one, two, three, and five. These owners shall enter into a shared parking garage agreement and contribute to the shared parking garage reserve fund. An easement in favor of the corporation will be registered over the parking garage to allow for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress over and through the separate portions. It is on the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development that the Planning and Environment Committee advise the approval authority of the issues, if any, raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for draft plan of vacant land condominium and site plan approval.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes the presentation and staff are available to address any of your questions. Thank you, Ms. Curtis.

Any technical questions? I see none. Go now to the applicant’s consultant. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

It’s Harry Frucios from Zalinka Priemel. I’m here together with Laura Ger from Cohen Highley. We represent the SoHo Alliance for this application. I just wanted to thank staff for their efforts in bringing this application forward for your attention this afternoon.

If you recall, we were in front of Planning Committee back in February of this year for the original application. And at that time, there were no issues expressed from Committee or the public. This proposal really is a technical revision to allow for more for cost-effective development that is still in keeping with the previous approvals for official plans, zoning bylaw amendments and site plan approval. So Madam Chair, we really have nothing to add.

We’re just here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frucios, for being here.

And I will now go to the public. And if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation, or advise the approval authority of any issues, please come forward. I’ll ask one more time. I’ll ask the third time that there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak.

See none, I’ll go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Close in the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. And with that, I’d like to go to committee for comments for a motion.

Councillor Lewis. I’ll move the staff recommendation, Madam Chair. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Lehman. Any further comments?

See none. And with that, we can proceed to vote. Close in the vote, the motion carries four to zero. We are just moving on right now to 3.5, which is a public participation meeting for a zoning application for 1140 Ventropark Road East.

I just want to bring the committee’s attention to the revised staff recommendation on the edits. And there will be a staff presentation. So I would like to go to committee to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lehman.

And just before we proceed to vote, I do want to bring to the committee’s attention the EPAC report that was already in the consent items. There is an item that relates to this public participation meeting. We did receive the extra information from EPAC as well. So I just wanted to draw everyone’s attention to that as we start the public participation meeting.

Closing the vote, the motion carries. You now go to staff for their presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Melanie Vivian, site development planner.

The presentation for this application can be found starting on page 165 of the added agenda in front of you today. So moving on to slide two here, just give some context for the site. It’s located to the north of Fanshawe Park Road East, just south of St. Angel Road East.

It’s bounded by Highbury Avenue to the west and comprised a survey of approximately 120 acres. The site does contain a provincially significant wetland towards the western portion of the site, just south of St. Angel Road East. And the site is surrounded by low density residential uses, open spaces, commercial and agricultural lands, among other uses.

Moving on to slide here, which is the proposed draft plan of subdivision. As shown on the plan there, they are proposing 18 low density residential blocks, six medium density residential blocks, two school blocks and three open space blocks. And it’s noted that one of those blocks is proposed for the compensation and relocation of an existing provincially significant wetland as outlined in the applicant’s proposal there. Access point to the site include the extension of Savannah Drive, Nicole Avenue, Davos Drive and Blackwell Boulevard, coming off of Fanshawe Park Road East there.

So as part of this application, amendments are requested to the 1989 official plan to re-designate lands from low density residential to multifamily medium density residential and to re-designate a portion of the lands from low density to open space for the proposed wetland relocation and compensation area. Amendments are also requested to the London plan to change the place type on a portion of the lands from green space place type to the neighborhoods place type on and surrounding the PSW on site and to change the place type on a portion of lands from neighborhoods place type to the green space place type to facilitate the overall development. Amendments are also requested to the zoning by-law, which include changing the zoning from holding urban reserve and open space zone to a number of zones, including a bonus residential R8 special provision, R5 zone, residential R1, special provision, a neighborhood facility and open space zone to facilitate the proposed subdivision on site. So the site itself does have quite a bit of history here.

So there was the PSW on site, which was part of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board relating to the Arva Marine Wetland Complex and the Sony Creek Community Plan in 1999 and 2000, respectively, where it was determined the wetland did not play a significant role in the overall natural heritage system. As such, the PSW was removed from the 1989 official plan mapping of schedule B1, the natural heritage features. It’s noted that the application for Druellil for the plan of subdivision was originally submitted in 2007. In 2008, the PSW was listed as a class four to seven and added back onto the subject lands by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and is reflected on their mapping.

In 2010, schedule B of the ‘89 official plan was split into B1 and B2. And as a result, the PSW was removed from the mapping. However, it was still identified on that provincial mapping. In today’s context, it is identified on map five of the London plan, which is in force and effect.

So as shown here on slide six, it identifies the location of eventually significant wetland identified on map five natural heritage. So kind of getting into some policy in terms of the provincial policy statement, the PPS directs natural heritage features and areas to be protected for the long term, including the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area. It also notes that development and site alterations shall not be permitted in significant wetlands and eco-regions. So for the purpose of this application, the subject lands are located in eco-region six E and 70 based on the mapping.

So additional policies here, as noted, it does not conform to the PPS as they are proposing development and site alteration within a significant wetland. The London plan also provides policies which seek to protect, rehabilitate and manage the natural heritage features. And again, notes that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in PPSW’s as identified on map five of the natural heritage. In 1989, Official Plan also notes that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in PPSW’s.

This is not withstanding the fact that the PSW does not show on the 1989 Official Plan mapping. So at a high level, we did review the subdivision design given the status of the PSW. So at a high level, the proposed road networks, specifically the neighbor connectors, are not in conformance with the planning street widths of the London plan. There was also concerns with respect to the lot width variations provided and with respect to the proposed bonus zone.

One of the requested setbacks was based on an accepted EIS and/or slope stability report. However, as noted in the report prepared, the EIS has not been accepted. Through the circulation process, we did receive some comments from the public and the concerns have been raised for loss of privacy, decrease in property values, increased traffic through the area, the loss of green space, and one member of the public in support of the application. As such, staff are recommending refusal of the request in 1989 Official Plan amendments, the London Plan amendments, and the request it’s owning by-law amendments as the proposal is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

I’m happy to answer any questions committee may have. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vivian.

If there are any technical questions from committee members? Councillor Turner. I’m just curious, what I’m looking for in the report. Maybe I missed it.

What’s the last EIS? There’s one from 2008 or something like that. I mean, is there a subsequent one that’s been submitted then there’s yet to be approved? Councillor Turner, you cut out a little bit that I think your question was the latest date for the EIS?

What’s the latest accepted EIS and what’s the most recent submitted EIS that hasn’t been accepted? Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair, I’m just pulling up the EIS to get a date. I’ll just be one moment.

Apologies for the delay there. So my understanding is that we have not accepted an EIS for this area. The latest copy that we have was prepared on December 20th of 2021. So Turner, any further technical questions?

So, given that part of the requirement complete application is the acceptance of an EIS, is this been deemed a complete application or if not, why are we seeing this at this point? Through you, Madam Chair, the applicant submitted an EIS for staff’s review. It has not been accepted in terms of, I guess agreeing with what was stated within the EIS. Yep.

Any other technical questions from committee members? I see none, I will now go to… We’re in technical questions from committee members. I see Councillor Cassidy is here.

Do you have a technical question of staff? Councillor Cassidy, go ahead. We can’t hear you though. Thank you for recognizing me.

That’s all I said, so thank you. Again, through you to staff. So there’s a lot in the staff report and in the presentation about the wetland and it does seem to be kind of a confusing thing where it’s not on the 89 official plan based on an OMB. So would you say that that is the most significant blockage for I know there were other deficiencies as well in the application?

Is the wetland question most significant blockage to this moving forward? And is it perhaps because of that, that we’re not able to really dig deep into those other issues that normally we would have worked with the applicant to make sure they have it. Councillor Cassidy, we are technical questions only right now, so your question is, is this the most significant road block to the amount? If I can go to staff.

Thank you Madam Chair, it’s first page. One of the key things when we received the application through the analysis is that the application didn’t conform with the provincial policy statement as Ms. Vivian pointed out in her presentation. And at that point, it’s staff don’t have the ability to modify that, we’re providing that information from the province and we simply implement it.

So that’s one of the key issues that restricted us in doing a full analysis of this application. Thank you, any further technical questions? If the committee will allow me, and I think my question was very similar to the word Councillors, but are we as a municipality allowed to move a provincially significant wetland just over to staff? And do we have that authority?

Through you Madam Chair, no, we don’t have this municipality ability to relocate a provincially significant wetland. Thank you. And with that, I will now go to the applicant’s consultant who is here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It’s actually Kerri O’Brien from your holdings. I’m going to speak for us. Can you hear me okay? Yes, I can, Ms.

O’Brien, and welcome. If you can, I just want to remind you, you do have up to five minutes. Please proceed. Absolutely.

And as Councillor Cassidy sort of alluded to, there’s a significant history with this file and I’m not going to bore committee to death with the details ‘cause we’ve kind of already gone over those with staff over the last three years. While we are disappointed with the recommendation for refusal, we are greatly appreciative of staff’s willingness to sort of move this forward and get it before PEC members and hopefully council, allowing us to move forward with an appeal to OLT. It’s sort of a resolution that isn’t possible at the staff level as Mr. Page indicated.

And we have not had success through sort of channels with the Ministry of Natural Resources currently. So appeal to OLT is sort of our best course of action. And like I said, we’re greatly appreciative for their transparency over the last three years and getting us to this point. I do have a couple of comments relating to the file.

And I just want to note that where staff has been gracious in revising the report most recently since Friday when I submitted kind of a lengthy response to them. And Melanie touched on a lot of the things that I was going to bring up today. So that helps. One point that I did want to raise is there’s some mention that M&RFs removed the feature from their maps and reapplied it.

We have submitted a number of FOI requests on this property and to the best of our understanding, the feature was never removed from M&RFs mapping. And that’s kind of indicated through their comment on the original application in 2007 referencing the PSW. As Melanie referenced, there was past 1B decisions on this property, most notably the one in February 3rd, 2000, which determined that the wetland was not worthy of retention and resulted in it being removed from the OMB schedules. After that decision, the adjacent development to the West actually proceeded and removed a portion of this feature.

So that decision has been upheld in a portion of its entirety. Ultimately, I wanted to sort of speak to the proposed compensation and some of the work that we’ve done over the last three years to try to move this file forward. As part of our FOI request, we were able to determine what the wetland had not been evaluated in any way since 1997, which was the original evaluation. And our consultant did complete an evaluation on the feature in March of 2021.

And that’s how the application has been proceeding based on that evaluation and sort of our interpretation that the definition of a significant under the PBS is based on the OWES evaluation system and this wetland did not meet that test. So we have proposed to relocate/compensate the feature in line with London plant policies at a one-to-one land area basis, or sorry, land area ratio. The proposed compensation location we feel would provide a net environmental benefit for the property given that it’s adjacent of woodland ESA and contributes to the overall Stony Creek corridor system. It would allow us to create wetland features of quality attracting a variety of species and improving biodiversity in the area.

As I mentioned, we are appreciative of staff getting us to this point. And we look forward to resolution in the future through an loyalty appeal. I’m available. Should members have any questions?

We also have members of our consultant team on the call from Zlinkapriano and NTE. Should you have technical questions that are outside of my scope? So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms.

O’Brien. I’d like to now go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. Just for the public. No.

  • Yes, hello. I’m sorry, I was having trouble with my newt, my newt. My name is Laurie and Yell. Yeah, thank you, Ms.

Gill. Welcome to the planning and environment committee, public participation meeting. If you wish, you can also add your address. And I would just like to remind you, you do have up to five minutes, so please proceed.

Okay, my address is 1468, Sunningdale Road East, you’re in London. So do you need my postal code? No, no, thank you. But please proceed, we’re listening.

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the planning process. I will say that I did the last update I received on the plan was from 2007. And I can say that since then, there’s been a lot of change up in the Sunningdale area, which is affecting the traffic volume and the accompanying noise levels. So the development will no doubt when it goes sort of across the street from me, this development will increase the noise level.

And I don’t know if there is any mitigation that can be considered for the existing properties. There’s about five or six of us along this side of Sunningdale, on the north side of Sunningdale. I don’t know, I just filled that out there as the traffic is huge and very noisy to I will add. In the planning application, I did note that there will be a road widening to the immediate east end or west of Nicole Lab.

I’m not sure exactly where, but I think it’s to turn into Nicole Lab. Again, this is going to increase the noise level. And I don’t know if it’s even possible for the developer to relocate where Nicole comes out, given that there’s other properties along Sunningdale nearby that don’t have a housing directly across the road. That’d be one question.

Also, the existing properties on the north side of Sunningdale Road, we’re all on septic system. So because there’s going to be a road widening, I get my question for consideration. Are there any plans to add in city sewage at that time? My third point is the exact use of block 34, which is great on Sunningdale Road near Nicole Lab.

The exact use is not known, I did read through it, there’s examples provided. My request is whatever it is that goes in there, is that the provision of a yard depth be provided in order to accommodate a landscape buffer for screening from the residential properties on the north side of Sunningdale Road. ‘Cause obviously we’re going to be looking at a building of some sort there. And finally, my request is that consideration be given to the aesthetics for homeowners, such as myself, in these existing properties by way of aesthetic looking fencing and street oriented windows.

So we’re not looking into the backyards. And so it’s just so it looks nice and maintains our property values as much as it can. Let’s go. Sorry, are you still there?

You still have time? I am, thank you. This is what I wanted to move forward, thank you. Thank you, and just before you leave, I do have, you had three questions, the road winding, the sewers.

And the first question I did not get about the house, and is it unusual to have a plan with a house? Missed that part, if you can. My first one, I talked about the development will increase the noise level. And I simply don’t know if there is any mitigation that can be considered for the five or six property owners that are on the north side of Sunnydale in the immediate vicinity of where Nicole has planned to go.

And I’ll add to my next question about whether— Yep, I think I’ve got the effort too, but I just wanted clarification for the first one. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

To now, if there’s anyone else here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. I see none. I would like to now go to committee to close the public participation meeting, moved by, Councilor Turner, seconded by, Councillor Lehman.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, 4-0. Committee for comments, I would like to go to staff for the, this is three questions, that the public had regarding the mitigation for the houses to the north and the near the Nicole Avenue, if anything is going to be done there. Concerns about the road widening, plans for road widening, and are there plans for sewers? Through you, Madam Chair, I’ll start with the noise mitigation portion there.

So I do want to note that through staff’s review of the draft plan of subdivision, it was just on at a high level, given that there is the PSW on site, does not conform to the PPS. But I can definitely try and answer the member of the public’s question. So in terms of the noise mitigation, as part of the detailed review, their noise studies will be required, and those will be done typically as part of the plan of subdivision, and/or subsequently with site plan approval applications for the buildings themselves. In terms of the road widening, I heard block 34, so that’s the road widening dedication block.

As part of an application under the planning act, we do have the ability to take those lands. It just may or may not be used right away. We just at least have it in the reserve. I believe there was a question about what was proposed along block 34.

I’m not sure if the member meant block 20. However, block 20 is proposed to be for medium density development there. It’s proposed to be the bonus R8 for zone, but proposal zoning for the increased height and density in turn for affordable housing. Again, that was not fully reviewed as part of this application given the PSW on site.

In terms of the sewers, I will pass it along to Mr. Feldberg to answer that portion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Feldberg. Sorry, folks, I was on mute there. I mean, think after two years, anyway, as I was saying, there are a number of sanitary sewers planned for the area. There’s actually a large parcel behind the residence house that is planned for future development.

We have a couple of DC projects planned for a storm pond as well as sanitary servicing. So while there are no immediate plans for sanitary servicing on Sunningdale Road, we can look at that in the future when the future developments come on that side of the road. In addition, there is a DC project planned for Sunningdale Road in front of these properties where we would be looking to urbanize the road. It’s currently planned for 2028, but that might get pushed out depending on affordability in an upcoming DC study.

I also heard from the resident about looking for urban design and looking for nicer aesthetics on buildings, and that is we do have policies for that. And we do look for treatments on properties and flankages of roads and things like that. Trust that answers the resident’s questions, but if there are any further, she can connect with Miss Vivian and we can dive a little deeper. Thank you for that information, Mr.

Feldberg. And just before I go to committee, I do want to let committee know, we do have a number of staff from Upper Thames Conservation Authority here to help with technical questions if needed. So with that, I’d like to go to committee comments. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll move the staff recommendation for refusal on this one. See if there’s a seconder and then I’ll offer my comments. Councillor Turner is seconding.

So if I can just— - Please proceed. Share a few comments. It’s quite rare. I’m trying to recall another situation since I’ve been on the planning committee where both the staff and the developers say, refuse this application.

So I’m happy to refuse it. There’s agreement. We’ve heard that the developer will appeal and that’s the route that they want to go. So I’m happy to let them pursue that route and things will proceed as they are.

I do wonder from what I know of this application, how significant the wetland is when my understanding is, it’s actually a former watering hole for livestock when the place was operating as a livestock farm. But I’m not an expert in that and I’m happy to let the folks who may come before the loyalty from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry or from the applicants side of things to argue that out. That’s why we have a process for that and I think that it’s reasonable to just let them take it up there and go forward. I think that at some point, the public comments, development is going to happen in the area, maybe not this particular project, but I think that we will see some infill coming.

So I think the feedback that we heard from the public is good food for thought for future considerations as well. And I’ll just end my comments there. I think that this one is a straightforward no. And if the applicant wishes to appeal, then they can do so.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I would like to go to the word Councillor, Councillor Cassidy before I proceed. Go ahead. - Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I give my comment, I have a couple of additional questions. Concerning the sanitary sewers along Sunnydale Road and the fact that the homes on the North side are still on septic. I heard Mr. Felberg’s answer or actually, anyway, whoever has been answered, my apologies.

Following up on that, if these developments were to happen, let’s say there weren’t these obstacles in place and this development was going forward, would that be the right time? Obviously, this would be a huge subdivision. It will require servicing for sure. And would that be the appropriate time then to extend servicing to the properties in the North or on the Northern side of Sunnydale that are currently on septic?

Mr. Felberg? - Through you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me this time?

Yeah? - Sure, okay. Okay, so for the sanitary, basically the ideal time for us to do that would be through the urbanization of Sunnydale Road. So that’s a DC project led by the city.

And through that process, we could assess sanitary capacity for both the North and the South side of the road and ensure that it ties into the existing system. Madam Chair, my other question then, is has to do with the provincially significant wetland, the fact that Drulo has had to go through a number of freedom of information requests to try to get answers from the ministry. I’m wondering how long some of this information has been sitting with the ministry. I don’t know if staff can answer that or, but how long has it been sitting with the ministry while the applicant is waiting for the information they need to proceed?

I wonder who can answer the question. Through you, Madam Chair, it’s perspicable. Whilst really exactly, but I believe it’s been sitting since 2017 is my recollection. So it has been sitting with the ministry for several years.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. So my comments are, this is frustrating. I absolutely 100% agree with the staff recommendation. It is gladdening to hear the applicant agreeing as well that staff are pretty much hamstrung here under provincial policy.

We cannot move a provincially significant wetland and that makes sense. The going back and forth with different officials and through different avenues and getting different answers on whether this actually is a PSW or not, that is very frustrating. So for me, this is a large subdivision that, or a potential subdivision that has been sitting, waiting to be developed for a very long time. And the reason it’s frustrating for me is since pretty much the day I was elected in 2014, I’ve had people in the subdivision just to the west asking when Stackhouse Drive will be upgraded, when they will get sidewalks on that road, when there could possibly be a traffic light for people coming out Stackhouse and going on to Fanshawe Park Road, when there will be street lights on that road to make it safer at night when people are out walking their dogs and things like that.

And all my answer since 2014 has been, we’re waiting for these lands on the east side to be developed. And we’ve been going through a process for many years, trying, the applicant I know has been hoping to develop these lands. This is well within the urban growth boundary. If you see how close that subdivision is, it’s quite, that subdivision is a mix of old and new.

There are older homes built in the ’50s and ’60s in there. There are brand new homes in there. It’s quite a tightly packed subdivision. It makes sense to develop these lands as well and add housing and add the amenities to the area that people are waiting for.

I wanna say this as we seem to be in an election period at the provincial level, I was just called, when we hear the line that municipalities are putting red tape in place and municipalities are holding up residential development. And there is this crisis for housing, not just in London but across the province. Don’t ever, don’t just accept that line at face value. You’ve heard from the applicant that our staff have been working for three years with the applicant to try to find a way for this development to take place.

The fact that vital information has been sitting with the provincial ministry since 2017 and the applicant has had to file freedom of information requests to get the information they need to move this forward is really disappointing. And it’s going to take developers, municipalities, provincial governments, in some cases, federal governments all working together to solve the housing crisis that we are in and the affordability crisis that we are in. I’ve seen in the report, the staff report that the applicant didn’t quite hit the mark with what they were offering for affordability and then there were a number of other deficiencies. But we can’t even move forward in those negotiations to get the affordable units where we want them to be and to solve some of those other issues that need to be solved because the wetland issue is the one that’s sitting out there.

So whatever does happen with that, whatever is the end result, if this is the fastest way by refusing this as we have to do and we are right to do at this level and then have the applicant appeal this and try to get some kind of cooperation from the provincial ministries, if this is the way that will move this along most quickly, then I’m wholeheartedly in support of that, knowing, however, that we really need to get the development in this area. So thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak at your committee. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. I will now go to Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So first, some thanks to Upper Thames and EPAC for a significant in-depth comments on the file and especially with respect to the EIS. Councillor Cassidy talked about some of the administrative hurdles here, but I would also put this back on the developer to say that submission of an adequate EIS is really important and there are market deficiencies by the accounts of all staff, EPAC and Upper Thames in what was submitted and that’s not going to help you at the tribunal as you go forward. So I would really encourage the applicant to update the EIS and address those deficiencies.

I thank the applicant for being forthright with the purpose of bringing this forward and acknowledging that the intent is to take this forward to appeal and have that heard at the OLT. I think the information here is thorough. One of the things in here, if I might ask through you, Madam Chair, to staff, one of the residents that writes in and provides comments as concerns about what appears to be site alteration that occurred within one of the blocks. I’m not sure if that’s accurate or not, but perhaps some comment on whether site alteration has occurred within this, not withstanding the fact that there’s no draft plan of subdivision at this time and whether that’s permitted or whether remediation is required.

So that question, I could go to staff about the site altar. Through you, Madam Chair, to the Councillor, we’re not aware of any site alteration, but we’ll take a look into it and try and get a response back prior to council. And if any action is required, we’ll follow up with the developer to ensure that any remediation or something. Oh, actually, I’m getting a text.

It’s actually 1150 Fanshawe. It’s stockpiling, so it’s an adjacent property. It’s not this property. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The author of the email identifies block 24, but identifies 1150 in there as well. So it’s good to have some clarification there. And that’s helpful because I would have some concerns if the applicant proceeded with site alteration without the draft plan having been approved yet. So for all the reasons that have been mentioned by my colleagues, I’m supportive of the recommendation to refuse the application.

And I can’t emphasize enough how important EISs are, especially when ecological and environmental features are involved in a potential application, as those will help to delineate any of the buffering or any of the features themselves and what developer plans are. Thank you, Councillor Turner. And without we do have an ocean on the floor, I would like to bring to the committee’s attention the revised recommendation, which is the added G. And without we can proceed to vote and my thanks to staff, upper Thames, and the developer with working on this application going forward.

Closing the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero. Okay, next up on the agenda is item 3.6, which is a public participation meeting for the introduction of the revised Victoria Parks Secondary Plan. I’d like to get a motion to open up the public participation meeting.

Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries. Board is zero. With that, I would like to go to staff.

Any comments or a verbal? Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me okay? Yes.

Great, thank you. This is File Planner, Isaac Kuster for File 08978 for the revised Victoria Parks Secondary Plan as item 3.6 on the agenda. This secondary plan was able to back on March 7, 2022 as a consent item and is now recommended for adoption. The staff report starts on page 177 on the added agenda package and the secondary plan on page 200 for anyone that would like to follow along.

This rule presentation, the purpose and planning background will be outlined as well as the work that’s been completed and revisions since the last secondary plan. The purpose of the secondary plan is to reconcile the mixed policy zoning and heritage framework to create a more clear and comprehensive vision to guide future developments and to provide more specific policy directions than your official plan. As shown on page 180, the secondary plan area includes all lands fronting the park, including parcels that could be reasonably consolidated. Further on February 1, 2020, a previous version of the Victoria Parks Secondary Plan was presented with a recommendation for adoption and as shown in section 1.3, page 80, sorry 180 of the agenda.

Council resolved that the secondary plan be referred back for further public consultation and consideration. Figure 2 on page 183 shows the existing high permissions based on the London plan. The place types in the secondary plan area are downtown, rapid transit corridor and neighborhoods with the open space place type applying to the park itself. Permitted heights are 20 up to 35 stories for downtown, 12 up to 16 stories for the rapid transit corridor, four of the six stories for the neighborhoods.

The existing high permissions in the zoning bylaw vary as a variety of residential downtown, business district commercial office and community facility zones apply to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan area. Existing permitted heights are three to five stories for the community facility and residential zones, 22 stories for city hall and 30 for the downtown. Further, as shown on page 185 of the agenda package, two additional layers of heritage conservation districts and a number of designated enlisted properties apply to the secondary plan area. I should note that Appendix A, Cultural Heritage, is updated to show the additional properties that have been added to the register since the draft was presented so that the chair can add these as well.

A heritage peer review on the secondary plan was also conducted with the recommendations included in the previous February, 2020 version and no conflicts were found. Section 4.1 page 186 outlines that additional community consultation was conducted since 2020, including a virtual community information meeting and a number of meetings with community special interest groups as well as property owners. As outlined in section 4, page 186, the additional studies and analysis conducted since February, 2020 include technical studies such as the shadow study and noise assessment, consultation on tree health and impacts with urban forestry and an analysis of hardscape and softscape areas. New policy considerations are outlined on page 190 and include the protected major transit station areas, inclusionary zoning, section 37 bonusing, which are no longer an option and the ongoing parking standards review that will inform onsite parking requirements in the future.

Major revisions since February, 2020 are outlined in section 5.1 on page 193 of the agenda and include the build form which has been reviewed to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses, mitigating shadow, privacy and other impacts, a new section called housing mix and affordability with policies to support a mix of housing sizes and configurations that are inherently more affordable and support different household makeups, a sustainable development section which has been improved to include policies about bird friendly design, active transportation and sustainable building technologies, the revised heights in the east policy area that I will speak on next and required study section that has been clarified site specific technical studies and requirements. Section 4.10 page 191 outlines two development applications within the secondary plan area that have been considered and approved by council. The first application is the site plan approval of 556 Wellington Street in September 2021. The existing zoning on this property allows for the height and density contemplated in the development proposal.

The second application is an official plan and zoning amendment for 56562 Wellington Street and the proposal was approved by council in November 2021 and subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal and is awaiting a hearing. Looking at the permitted heights in the Victoria Park secondary plan in section 3.7, starting at page 225 of the agenda package, the permitted heights state largely the same as the previous version and no changes are proposed to the north, south and west policy areas. The heights are related to the London plan playstipes, including a transition towards the north as one moves away from the downtown at the boundaries of the playstipes and recognizing the existing zoning on these different sites. Two applications outlined earlier influence changes to the height permissions on the east side.

For 556 Wellington Street, heights have been changed to 16 and 25 stories respectively to reflect the existing permissions and the Auburn property at 560 Wellington Street has been left out pending the OOT decision. Achieving the height and density on any sites within the secondary plan area is subject to site specific zoning bylaw amendments that demonstrates all of the built form and other policies for the secondary plan have been implemented. That brings me to my recommendation to adopt the revised Victoria Park secondary plan to guide future development and achieve the vision of the secondary plan. Thank you Madam Chair and staff is available for questions if you have some.

Thank you, any technical questions of staff? Dean Nunn, I would like to now to go to the public. I’ll go to my list to start off with and I would like to see if Hugh Handy is here. I guess I am Chair Hopkins.

Yes, please proceed if you could. Thank you. I’ll give us your name, address of yours and you have up to five minutes. Thank you Chair Hopkins, members of committee and council.

My name is Hugh Handy and I’m a vice president and land use planner at GSP group, which is located in Kitchener at 72 Victoria Street. So I appreciate the opportunity to address you this afternoon. GSP represents 560 Wellington Holdings Inc. Both GSP and Auburn have submitted letters to the PEC which is part of your agenda package this afternoon.

As many of you will be aware, GSP and our client have been involved since the commencement of the secondary plan. In fact, the whole secondary plan process originated based on our site specific applications for 560 and 562 Wellington. We have delegated and submitted comments throughout the process. So I will be brief this afternoon and obviously knowing our letters are before you.

Also these applications, as indicated in the presentation, they’ve been appealed by third parties based on the approval of PEC and London Council in November 2021. With that in mind, I’m gonna focus on two key points. The revised Victoria Park secondary plan does not recognize in my opinion in our opinion of the applications and their approval by London Council. We would respectfully request that it indicate the approvals of the seven story building and design on the site subject to the resolution of the matter at the OLT.

It’s an important recognition in my opinion of the local decision and it’s appropriate at this juncture to include in the Victoria Park secondary plan. Secondly, we still believe the heights on the east side or east policy area should still be reviewed and reflect the contextual aspects of this area and current approvals. Some of those were noted in the presentation and we recognize that there is a gradient that the city is trying to achieve on this side of the park. And in turn, we just request that staff look at those further.

In conclusion, we believe these items should be referred back to staff for further consideration. With respect to 562, 560 and 562 Wellington, option would include or could include either revising the mapping and policies related to 562 Wellington to reflect Council’s decision of the seven story building and design or entirely removing 560 and 562 Wellington from the Victoria Park secondary plan. Thank you again for allowing me to address you this afternoon and I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee. Thank you, Chair Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Handy. I would like to now go to next on my list. Matthew Campbell from Celenka, I have two from Celenka.

I’m not sure who would like to go first. Madam Chair, it’s not Campbell, is the Lincoln-Preaman here, can you hear me? Yes, please proceed. You have about five minutes, just.

Wonderful, thank you very much. So you are correct, there are at least two of us from Celenka Priema who are presenting on this matter this evening. Myself and my colleague Casey Kochicki. So my comments are related to St.

Peter’s Cathedral and the Roman Catholic Diocese of London. And our firm submitted a letter on Friday regarding this. I hope the committee has had a chance to look at that letter. If not, I will touch on the high points of that just for your consideration.

So the lands that we’re referring to, again, are St. Peter’s Cathedral and the Roman Catholic Diocese lands bounded by Clarence Street, Richmond, Dufferin, and Angel Street. And we’ve had some concerns with regards to the proposed secondary plan and have submitted letters previously on these issues. And they really relate to the view corridors and physical connections that is on schedule three, as well as the permitted heights and built form.

And that’s referenced on schedule four. In regards to the view corridors and physical connections, the plan shows a connection through Kent Street, which currently doesn’t exist. That’s a parking lot there right now. But that could have significant implications on the developability of that particular property.

Now, we know that there’s some discrepancy between the developability of that land versus some development concepts that were proposed earlier on in the process that showed the closure of Angel Street. Now, I can say that the Diocese in St. Peter’s are open to the possibility of a land exchange, provided it would meet the city’s goals. That’s something that really needs to be cleared up.

And I think the theme of my comments this evening are going to be encouraging a referral back so we can get some of these issues clear up. So again, the view corridors and physical connections problematic both on the northerly portion of these lands and the southerly, and particularly at the corner of Dufferin and Clarence. So that location historically had a seminary building on it. And we understand that there are still plans in the works for a one story, a rectory or seminary structure to be constructed on those lands at some point in the future.

And there’s ongoing discussions about that building with city staff. However, the view corridors may prohibit that. And it’s problematic for two reasons. And these are seemingly contradictory reasons.

So these bear with me. The heights in that location specify a minimum of two stories, whereas a St. Peter’s summary is looking to just do a one story building. Now, a one story building would have less impact on view corridors, whereas a minimum two story building would certainly have a more appreciable impact and would limit views to and from, or that would bisect that corner of the property.

And the additional issues with heights and built form are that we have again, some contradictory policies that relate on the northerly portion of the site. Again, as I mentioned, we have a view corridor and physical connection opposite Kent Street. And again, the development potential in that location is severely impacted if that connection is to go through. The interesting thing is that there’s a policy 3.8.6, subsection 8 that could negate some of the heights and intensities we’re looking at here due to shadow impacts.

And it would just like to point out that if any members of the committee have been out in the park on a warm day and out in the banjo area, well, we know that’s a nice area to receive some shade. So just some attention to those particular policies may be worthwhile when looking at final approval of this plan. So in closing here, again, these comments are on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese in St. Peter’s Cathedral.

We would encourage the committee to refer this back to staff or further consideration for the reasons that we’ve mentioned. And again, those reasons are outlined in the letter submitted by our firm. Happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. And thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I have a next step, Mr. Kocheke as well from Solenka Priema.

Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Casey Kolchicki. I am a senior planner with Solenka Priema Limited. I am here on behalf of Great West Life.

That is Candelife’s Realty Branch. They are the owners of the property at 556 Wellington Street that Isaac referred to in his staff presentation and is also referenced in the staff report. This site recently received site plan approval for two apartment buildings, 18 and 12 stories respectively. We’ve been involved in the process with staff since the site plan was announced.

And we overall were generally favorable with the direction the plan has been going in, particularly with this version and the increases in permissible buildings. It’s on our client’s lands that are more consistent with the approved development that was through site plan approval. Ivy provided a letter on the agenda, so you are aware of some of the outstanding concerns from our clients with regards to the secondary plan. It would like an opportunity to have some additional discussions with staff with regards to building setbacks, particularly as it relates to the proposed Princess Street extension/connection to the park.

We think that there’s an opportunity to take a closer look at that interface and how that could potentially look with regards to both our lands as well as the Centennial Hall City Hall lands to the south. We think there might be some additional opportunities for some more efficient land use in the terms of development and additional buildings along that stretch. And then in addition to the setback concerns, our client has some concerns with regards to the affordable housing policies that have been added into this version. Our client realizes that affordable housing is a much needed item here in the city.

Could you just go back, you just cut out and I did not go back to the beginning of your sentence? Certainly my apologies that darn internet connection. Our client has some significant concerns with regards to the affordable housing policies. They recognize the need for affordable housing in the city of London.

And in the development industry, affordable housing has been a known entity for years through the bonus zone process. Unfortunately, under provincial order, the bonusing process has been removed and is no longer a viable tool for municipalities. And we feel that the policies as written are roughly bagged with how affordable housing will be obtained, what constitutes as an affordable housing unit, as well as the lofty target of 25% for development be affordable housing, given that current standards roughly present around the 5% of total units as being provided for affordable housing under the current focusing provisions. So we just think that we would let, or our client would like to have some additional discussions with staff on fine tuning the affordable housing policies in addition to the setback policies, just to ensure that the secondary plan puts its best foot forward in the future.

I’m here to answer any additional questions that planning committee may have. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to now go to committee room number five.

There’s a number of residents in committee room number five. If you can come forward with your name, address if you wish. And just a reminder that you have five minutes. And if you can go to the microphone.

I am at a microphone. Okay. What do I do? Press the red button.

We can hear you. - We can hear you. We can’t see you. Go to the podium on the table, sir.

Thank you. No, go turn it on now. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can.

Welcome to the planning and environment committee, public participation meeting on the Victoria secondary plan. You can state your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. Please call. My name is Ben.

My name is Ben Lansink. I live at 505 Colburn Street in beautiful Woodfield and have since 1985. I’m new to this. And the only person I see that I recognize is my friend, Mr.

Turner. Are there any other committee members listening to this? Just curious. Yes, we have three committee members, myself and council chambers.

You cannot see the other two, but there are four of us on the committee here listening to you. I’m just not aware of the technology, and I thank you for explaining that. So they are there, they’re just not shown. Where are they?

The thing I want to just to address briefly is there was an added communication by myself that the members received it. Yes. Yes, okay. The only comment I wish to make is that Parkland and high density residential lands go hand in hand.

I don’t need to go into that, communicate if the committee members have seen it and read it. And I thank you very much. Thank you. Unless you have any questions.

No, thank you for your comments. If there’s anyone in the committee room number five that would like to speak, please proceed with your name, address if you wish. And again, you have up to five minutes welcome. Hello, it’s Marianne Hodge, three time Wolf Street.

And as I look around this public participation meeting, I don’t see very many of the public here. There were hundreds of people engaged in the secondary plan process yet. I do not see them here tonight. Is it because they feel their voices were heard and they have no objections?

Or is it because they are defeated by the process? That no matter what the plan says, development is decided on a council on a case-by-case basis and is not bound by the secondary plan. I’ve heard this plan is called a compromise. I really don’t see anything of significance that has been compromised.

Many residents participated in the creation of the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation Plan. During the secondary planning process, we heard loud and clear that the language used in the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation Plan was too vague and full of suggestions, but no real teeth. I would love to be corrected, but I see that same language in the Victoria Park secondary plan. Tonight, I’d like to speak about the value of heritage.

Larry Beasley is an urban planner in Vancouver, which like Toronto has really increased the density of its downtown. However, Beasley, when speaking about the heritage value of the downtown core in Washington, D.C., said that they should not allow heights in historic areas or on high points in the city, which should remain either natural or host important public edifices like the National Cathedral. Wellington Street is the gateway to London’s Heritage District. Heritage buildings need to have space around the buildings.

This needs to be respected. You cannot allow downtown design standards to exist in heritage neighborhoods. And Victoria Park in West Woodfield is an heritage neighborhood. Ghosting 560 and 562 Wellington does not address the disrespect of building to the property line as Auburn is planning to do here.

Next, I want to speak about the value of community. The city recently approved the climate emergency action plan, and we hear a lot about how this means we need to build inward and upward. But what does that mean? Does that mean that every building in the downtown core should be 30 to 40 stories tall?

Do we really aspire to be Toronto’s younger sibling? Urban planner Larry Beasley also suggests that any increases must be tied to particular amenities. He suggests that when developers get the benefit of a public good, which is what being next to Victoria Park is, it gives them added value to their development. Then more should be expected from them.

Again, the secondary plan is vague with its expectations. We should expect that these buildings are net zero emissions. We should expect that they have outdoor amenity spaces and not just indoor spaces that are for the sole use of the tenants of the building. Perhaps a land swap for public park space elsewhere in the downtown would be appropriate.

We should expect being next to the park that all glazing is bird friendly. As Larry points out, residents often oppose tall buildings both because they can disrupt their intuitive comfort with the city and also specifically impact privacy, height or views. However, in exchange for clear and desirable amenities, along with good design in his experience, many residents can ultimately support these projects. And I’d also like to speak about sprawl.

A.J. Diamond, a respected Toronto architect, recently wrote in the Globe and Mail that just building high-rise towers in the core does nothing to support public transit. You need to remove inclusionary zoning restrictions to allow for two, three and four-story buildings within the entire city to create gentle density throughout London, to create neighborhoods like Wortley Village and Siftans New West Five that reduce the dependence on owning a vehicle. If a city is intent on building up the downtown core, then I would like to see them be equally committed to increasing gentle density throughout the city.

Lastly, we need to talk about housing affordability. I often hear affordability discussed as the average cost of a one-bedroom apartment. I agree with Great West Realty, having a 25% affordable wish for units around the park is a recipe for disaster. From my understanding of math, the average cost of a rental unit will increase every time a luxury unit is added to the inventory and a low-income rental is not.

We cannot keep adding luxury units without balancing the need for affordable units. Even at 80% of market rent, those few units that are marked as affordable will cost over $1,600 a month. Ms. Hall, I need to interrupt it just to let you know you’ve got about 20 seconds left.

Okay, we need, sorry, that does not qualify as affordable. We need a better system for adding affordable housing downtown. The city should set an example. Will the city commit to making any development on the city-owned property affordable?

If the desire is to capitalize on the increased profitability of building around the park, then demand that a greater parcel of land is swapped and the builder commit to constructing truly affordable units in the near vicinity. This needs to be established as part of the secondary plan. Victoria Park is the jewel in London’s park system. It is an asset that we have inherited from London’s earlier councils.

Jewels have a high value. We need to ensure that the London community benefits from this natural resource. We should not be giving it away for no real benefit. I ask you to strengthen the Victoria Park secondary plan so it truly benefits all the residents of London, not just the few that will be lucky enough to live around it.

I urge you to send this back to staff. Thank you. Is there anyone else in committee room number five that would like to speak to the Victoria secondary plan? Please come forward.

Welcome. Hi, my name is Ina Maria Velastro. Yeah. - And just to remind you, you have up to five minutes.

Please proceed. My name is Ina Maria Velastro. I only know of one city councilor that attended those public meetings. That was Councillor Hopkins.

If you had attended those public meetings when this plan was being developed, you would see that this is exactly what they rejected. Was a wall around the park. And all the vistas except just won’t see this time along Richmond Street. It adds a lot of atmosphere to the street would be covered up with very large tall buildings and on very small parcels of land.

And this is just not what people want. And in fact, I feel really insulted that the public voice has been so silenced with this plan. And I just see a lot of hypocrisy where we’re doing land swaps on the edge of the city. So a school can be built for low-rise development.

And then in the core where it’s very crowded, very tight, you have the highest density. I don’t, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s just what the previous speaker said. If you’re going to have high density, you have it everywhere, not just in some places.

And the wall around the park was flatly rejected passionately by the public that participated in this process, but no Councillor came except for one. And so now our voice is completely silenced and decisions have been made outside of this plan, which again, it’s very offensive for people that engage in good faith. Their voice is completely silenced. And there’s no climate change evaluation of these buildings.

The taller the building, the greater the heat that’s radiated off those buildings. There’s no buffers, there’s a lack of green space. All of it is just exactly what no one wanted. And yet here we are.

And this whole thing about putting feet on the street and none of that makes sense. It’s just, these are just catch lines that have no real grounding in real community building. So I’m really offended by this. And I know there’s people that are not here tonight because they’re so frustrated.

And they’re so frustrated with a council that just doesn’t listen to them, even though there’s a lot of wisdom and what people have to say. And so I’m asking that you please reject this and send it back to staff. Thank you. Thank you.

I’d like to ask if there’s anyone else. Please come forward, sir. Welcome. If you could state your name, address if you wish.

And you have— Hi, my name is— Five minutes. My name is Greg Berzas. I own 568 Wellington Street, which is about three inches away from the proposed 56562 Auburn Homes Development. So I’m right next door.

I’m also at the very corner. So two doors down at the very corner of Central Avenue and Wellington Street. That would be 572. I run a company called Think, T-H-I-N-Q Technologies.

I’ve owned these buildings for about 15 years. And right around the corner, two doors east on Central Avenue. I own the old sorority home, high beta 5, which was a nine bedroom woman sorority house, which we won the Conservatory Award downtown with Kyle and the rest of the gang, basically on the work that we’ve done on that particular structure. The hundreds, the millions of dollars that I have spent on these three, two units anyways facing the park is something that I kind of really thought was great for the community and great for the downtown core.

And we’ve lighted up the buildings and we really tried to increase the value of the neighborhood. And I’m one of the people that have gone to the tribunal and hired a lawyer in terms of opposing what’s being done. And I’m kind of thinking, now I’m going to sit across the street in the park and look at my two 1906, 1907 century mansions. And to beside me now, I have this brand new building and it’s kind of like having a beautiful park and putting a missile silo in the very middle of it.

It’s still a beautiful park, but now it’s got a missile silo in the middle of it. And for me, it’s just so out of place where you’ve either got a heritage area or you don’t. And, you know, all of the counselors that voted against this, they don’t live near what is going to be in amazing areas throughout the building. And the people that came to these meetings that spoke are the people that have been living in this community for 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

And it was the counselors that have no idea what it’s like to live in the downtown core. Are the ones that voted to move this application forward. And I think, you know, it’s despicable that that overruled the people that have been living in this community, that people like me that have literally invested millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars into these properties that are getting overrun. So I also thought it was really weird that all of a sudden it stops at the Auburn home property and the rest of my properties towards central avenue are on a completely different set of plans.

And it was kind of like, okay, if you’re going to put these buildings up, why wouldn’t the city just simply say, Greg, blow out the other homes and put up another 17 story building? It’s pretty hard to look at what Auburn is going to do beside these century mansions that are going to be there. It’s, they’re just going to look like they’re out of place. So I’m just kind of, I just basically wanted to say from an emotional perspective, but I do believe in density.

And I believe on the other side of Richmond Street of all those large high rises that are going up, as long as they’re supported with all of the new things that are coming in to London, like the transportation systems and things of that nature, great. I just got back from Florida. I live in Naples, Florida. And I got back and I saw all of the people wandering the streets down here and all the graffiti that’s on the road.

And I was head to my wife, was we’re driving into London after being away for four months. What has happened to the downtown Corey in London? I think there’s changes that— So reminder you have 30 seconds left. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else in committee room number five that would like to speak? I’d like to go to anyone calling in if they would like to make their comments to the Victoria Park secondary plan. I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone for here from the public that would like to speak to the revised secondary plan for Victoria Park. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to speak, please come forward.

And with that, I would like to go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. And I’d like to now vote a committee for questions, comments, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, I did want to ask staff, and I didn’t want to ask in technical ‘cause I’m not sure that this is really a technical question, but it was raised by the public as well. And it is a concern I have, which is this, what I’m going to call an aspirational target of 25% of all units within the secondary plan being affordable housing, but without a real definition of what affordable housing is, noting that even agreements that we get from HTC vary from project to project, some as high as 90%, market rates, some 80, some 75, units vary, obviously the length of term varies. So that is a bit of a concern for me.

I will say, I disagree that there’s not a benefit to having a $1,600 unit. If the other units are going at 2,000, for somebody that’s making $2,600 a month perhaps, that $400 savings can be the difference between something that is more within the range of their household budget or not. So any discount is welcome. But I do hear the frustration about the lack of what is defined and how, because we do have to decide on applications on a site-by-site application-by-application process.

So how are we gonna achieve this target without getting down to potentially the last available property? And we’re only at 15% and now we’re gonna put the remaining 10% of units onto the last property available. What we’re probably gonna end up with is a vacant property because it won’t be economically viable for somebody to develop. So through you to staff, I’m looking for some comments and some input on this 25% aspirational affordable housing goal.

I mean, I think there’s merit to having a goals like this, but how do we foresee achieving this in reality? I’d like to go to staff. Madam Chair, it’s great to be here speaking and I’ll start on this and if I miss anything, Kevin Edwards and Isaac Tkuster here to speak to it. First off, the definition of affordable housing is actually given in the London plan and it has, it can read it out to you, but as it relates to ownership, it is either the purchase price results in an annual accommodation cost, which do not exceed 30% of the gross annual household income or housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of the comparable resell unit in the city.

And for rental housing, it is a unit for which the rent does not exceed 30% of the gross annual household income for low-modered income households or a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the city of London. As it relates to affordable housing and the number and the ratio that’s been used on applications that have been in front of this committee, they have been tied primarily to that last definition, which is at or below average market rate in the city of London. I’d also like to remind the committee that these definitions are the definitions as well from the Provincial Policy Statement. So these are our London plan definitions that we’ve carried forward.

So they are the province’s definition. There is no question whatsoever that these definitions and these numbers meet what we now know to be affordable housing and the affordable housing crisis in the province and in the city. But those are the definitions that are given in policy in the London plan and given in the PPS. As it relates to that last definition, as I said, which is below average market rent, as Councillor Lewis noted, we have taken applications that have been anywhere or we’ve brought forward applications that have been anywhere from 90% down to 80% and sometimes even a little bit lower.

I think that the Council would agree that those applications that have been coming forward in the very recently have all been at the 80% rate. So we are actually at 80% of the average market rate. We’re not at the average market rate. Again, there is no question that that does not fully address housing affordability, but quite honestly, the policies of the plan and the ability to implement how we attack this issue goes beyond these policies, it goes to macroeconomic issues like income, it goes to macroeconomic issues like supply chain, it goes to all kinds of things that are beyond the policies of this plan.

But I can tell you that what these policies say are consistent with the policies that you have in the London plan. As it relates to the specifics on the 25% meeting that target, that speaks to the entire area. It’s not gonna be project by project, but it does align with other policies that exist within both the London plan. And then I re-articulated here in section 310 of the Victoria Park secondary plan where we speak to bringing forward Council’s desire that we provide for this.

And we would do that by providing units that meet different household structures within there by based on the different housing types, the different sizes and the units that would be available on the different developments that would occur over time. So that’s how affordable housing is addressed from a policy basis, and that’s the policy that is reflected here in the secondary plan and in the parent-lended plan. Councillor Willis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, I just want to follow up.

I appreciate everything Mr. Barrett said and understand that all. I guess what I’m looking for, and perhaps the answer is given, we don’t have details on inclusionary zoning yet. The answer may well be we don’t know, and I’m perfectly fine with that as well, but we know bonusing is leaving us.

We’ve in recent times been able to leverage additional lift for guaranteed affordable units. That’s been the primary tool that we’ve done that. But I guess what I’m asking through you, Madam Chair, to our staff is what tools do we envision being able to use with bonusing leaving to help achieve that 25% target. I have no quarrel at it whatsoever with the target.

I hear what Mr. Barrett’s saying in terms of the policy guidelines, but what tools do we foresee being available to us to help actually achieve it? I go to you, Mr. Barrett.

Thank you, through Madam Chair. Again, I’ll take the first cut. If I miss anything, I’ll invite my peers to please jump in. Councilor Lewis did indicate one tool that we do know of, and that would be inclusionary zoning, but that tool, if it’s chosen by Council at this point, would be limited to the protected major transit station areas, which in this instance would cover off the development on the west side of the park, because all of that is within the downtown and the rapid transit quarter.

So any of those developments there, if Council were to bring forward under the current framework, if Council were to bring forward, IZ, then IZ could apply to those, but as Committee and Council know, we also brought forward our first report on this matter and in that report recommended, and Council supported that we actually go to the province and say this isn’t going to work if it’s limited geographically in the city of London and ask the province to consider its application citywide. We don’t know if that will happen, but certainly that is one tool that could be available in the future to do this. Other tools that could be available in the future could be through the new zoning by-law and how that is developed and how that might provide opportunity to provide for additional consideration for the consideration of increases in height. What is lost through the loss in bonusing and what disappears as a result of amendments to the Planning Act is the ability of Council to enter into a bonusing agreement, which is a section 37 agreement, whereby these things that are provided as a public facility service or matter in consideration for the increased height or density are brought forward in an agreement, that disappears.

But whether or not we could do a similar type arrangement in a different format that gets beyond that agreement is something that we will be exploring as to whether or not similar type tools can be done with, might I suggest, some imagination and some thinking as to how we come forward on those types of applications in the future. That’s a long convoluted way which probably goes back to the first thing that Councillor Lewis said, which is probably you don’t know is the answer and we don’t actually know what it’s going to be, but these tools do have some opportunity, some potential in the future. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you, thank you, Mr. Barrett for that response and I appreciate when the answer is sometimes we don’t know because we’re still figuring things out and I think being honest about that is a really good thing for the public to hear as well.

We’ve got some work to do and of course we’ve got a provincial election on right now so we won’t hear back on our request to expand IZ. I suspect for at least a little while yet, perhaps even into the fall. So hopefully sooner than later, but it’s going to be an important tool in our toolbox. The other question that I wanted to raise, at least in my first round of questions, this was brought forward by two presenters and it was specific to the 565-62 Wellington and it was in our written communications as well.

So I just want to get a sense from our staff, just a little bit of clarity on that particular and I think in the table it’s designated as A-block, it’s those two properties that are sort of, as the applicant in that case described and sort of been ghosted out, they’re basically an asterisk that says ending the Ontario Land Tribunal decision on the appeal. So I just want to get a sense because we did hear from the applicant that could you just remove them or recognize the 17 stories that Council has granted approval for. I also know that the Ontario Land Tribunal and I have asked Mr. Barrett and I know that the answer is we’re never quite sure what we might get from them, but is there a reason that we’ve included those properties in the plan other than the geo mapping that we already had in place in the draft plan versus just leaving them out with an OLT appeal pending or that we haven’t designated them at the 17 stories that Council has approved with an OLT appeal pending.

I guess what I’m asking is not knowing what the outcome of the Ontario Land Tribunal would be. The purpose of having them in here or not in here, what’s the planning wisdom behind including them right now versus just leaving them out entirely? And I assume it’s 560 and 562 Wellington Street. I’d like to go to staff just to get the response.

Thank you, through Madam Chair, Mr. Barrett again. There are a couple of reasons. The first reason, well, the two different scenarios that were laid out and why we didn’t bring either one forward.

The first scenario as to just leave it as a whole, well, essentially that’s what’s done in grain it out and saying that whatever the answer that comes in the tribunal will establish what the permissions are on that site. I think it’s important for the Committee and Council to understand and the public to understand that decisions that are made cannot be made retroactive by an action of Council adopting subsequent policy change. So in fact, the consideration of that application was under the previous policy construct that existed and that would be the basis for its adjudication in front of the OLT. The adoption of this plan would not change that because this plan would not apply.

It would apply if there were a new application on that property, but it does not apply for what’s going on right now. With respect to why we didn’t bring in the Council decision, it’s not that staff were upset and didn’t want to acknowledge that Council had decided a position on these lands. It’s that that decision is under appeal. So if we were to actually bring that very same wording and that same decision in that’s under appeal and put it in this plan, well, it just opens this plan up for appeal on a matter that’s already in front of the tribunal.

So it didn’t seem to be wise at all to put that policy in place because we don’t know what the outcome of that tribunal hearing will be. So when, and what this plan says is when we get that, that’s what will be shown as the height limits on that height table for these properties. Councillor Lewis. Thank you.

And that’s really helpful. And what I’m paraphrasing for Mr. Barrett now, but basically because we don’t know that grayed out zone is a placeholder because it is still around the park and I understand that. So, and I can understand not wanting to have a second appeal generated because we’ve embedded it in the plan right now and that graying it out is, or as the applicant has called it ghosting it out, is essentially leaving it out until we have a response.

So I do appreciate that. I guess my final question around that particular item then is, again, I’m kind of throwing out some, what if scenarios? But if, what if the OLT makes a decision that, you know, there’s a valid grounds for the appeal but it’s not based on the height. You know, we get some sort of chimera back of, well, the density is okay, but the height’s not or the height’s okay, but the density’s not or whatever other factors might be at play.

How does that then get addressed through the secondary plan? Like, would we then have to look at an amendment to this secondary plan to address any regulations that the Ontario Land Tribunal put in place? Or would that just be through a bylaw that enacts the ruling of the Ontario Land Tribunal? I’m just kind of trying to get a, what if scenario?

We end up with something that neither party likes and we’ve kind of grayed out this area. How do we proceed from there? Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I can go to staff.

Thank you, a few minutes, Chair. Again, the zoning would be a different matter. So what could happen and what would likely happen through the OLT hearing would be that or what often happens is that the tribunal asks that a bylaw be prepared or if also a policy is that a policy be prepared or a bylaw be prepared or both be prepared to actually bring forward the tribunal’s decision. So that direction and then your staff essentially end up working for the tribunal with usually with the appellants and that bylaw that would bring forward those changes that the tribunal had found is what would then be in place.

So essentially that the tribunal generally helps clean it up by bringing forward the policy pieces and or any bylaw pieces that would be required to implement its decision. And if any of those required amendment to the plan that would be part of that process. Councillor Lewis. Thank you.

So I promise I’m going to be really quick on this and I just want to really quickly try and paraphrase what I just heard from Mr. Barrett. Essentially, if we get some sort of chimera thing back, we would be dealing with not necessarily in this exact process, but in spirit, we’d sort of be dealing with putting a special area policy in place for those particular properties. In a nutshell, is that what we would be looking at, Mr.

Barrett, knowing that the special area policy is not necessarily the right technical term, but in terms of the spirit of what would happen there. Again, to you, Madam Chair, and I believe as the Councillor noted, this is all conjecture, but if there were any policy changes that were required for an existing policy document in order to implement the board, the tribunal’s decision, and there were matters that were in front of the tribunal, the tribunal has the carriage to do that. If it would require that they direct that a special policy be prepared, then they would do that. The secondary plan is not in front of them.

What the secondary plan has done is said, we’ll put a placeholder in it, and we will await what comes out of the tribunal. And so the tribunal likely wouldn’t be directing any changes to this. If there’s anything that would come out that we’ve not captured, that we haven’t captured in a placeholder, then that would be part of what we would have to bring forward. Great, thank you, Mr.

Barrett. And thank you, Madam Chair, for entertaining those questions. I know I went on for a little bit. I probably exceeded my five minutes, but that was very helpful in getting me to a place where I could be supportive of moving this forward.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I have Councillor Turner next. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just wanted to provide some clarifications if we could.

Perhaps Mr. Barrett, we’ve gone around this a few hundred times on affordable housing, but the discount rate is based on the average market rental rate for the city of London, is that correct? Not the building in which the affordable housing is being added for financing. Through the chair, yes, sorry, I was waiting for that to be directed, but yes, through the chair, yes, it’s the average market rate for the city.

So the AMR for the city. And in fact, we’ve been with the HDC, been using the London CMA, which has actually been advantageous because the CMA average market rate is below the city of London average market rate. So we in fact have been providing for deeper levels of affordability based on that measure in the more recent applications that have come forward. Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Barrett, that’s helpful. So for context, the October 2021 CMA for one bedroom apartments is $1,191, so an 80% discount is a $953 unit.

If there’s a one bedroom unit in a building that’s going, that has its own rates at around $2,000, it’s an over 50% discount. So it’s a fairly significant discount. And this gets misstated very frequently. It’s a very difficult thing to grasp, I think, for many, but it’s really important.

And every time we talk about it, we talk about what that discount really is. And second, with respect to the 25% target, that 25% target is reflective of the target that’s in the London plant, that’s it. We don’t have any direct tools to enforce it, but we have a lot of tools to try and achieve it. And it would be wonderful if we had enforcement tools and inclusionary zoneings, one of those things, but it’s a city-wide target for all new development is 25% affordable housing.

We don’t get close to that. And I think we heard earlier that the 2021 building units, so it was about 3,100 building units in order to get to 25%, then we would have seen 750 affordable housing units built in that period of time. We didn’t do that. We didn’t come quite close to that.

We’ve got a number of different ways to accomplish that, but it’s important where we have area plans and policies that we reinforce that general policy that exists within the London plant. It’s also an objective within the hospital, South Street Victoria Hospital plan that we just talked about earlier this evening. So this isn’t foreign. It’s something that shows up every time and it should, and it’s really important for us.

I know it’s really interesting that this is I think third or fourth kick of the can at the Victoria Park area plan. And it seems to have a challenge in satisfying anyone, I think each time we haven’t had a lot of people speak in support of it. And I say refer this back to staff, get it done again. I’m not sure if we’re going to accomplish anything further than what we’ve had here.

I think it aims to reflect components of the Westwood field heritage conservation district, the downtown heritage conservation district, the downtown area plan, and the rapid transit corridor plans, as well as tries to accomplish some bridging between neighborhoods and the downtown. And that’s a tough thing to try and do. And that’s what the Westwood field heritage conservation district aim to do. And I think that plan did it fairly well until we were asked by one applicant to explore what we could do with an area.

It still didn’t satisfy applicants. This, we heard a lot of comments about the 560 and 562 tonight. Now that’s really on the table here. Now it becomes moot council has already made its approvals on 560 and 562.

And now it’s before the tribunal. It’s in the tribunal’s hands. So it really, what happens with the Victoria Park area plan or secondary plan that doesn’t really apply to that building anymore. So I think it would be inappropriate for us to refer it back.

I recognize why the applicant would want that is to kind of codify what they have. But the problem is as soon as you do that, then all those provisions that council put in place in exchange for those permissions would be lost because it would just be codified on the height itself and nothing else. So it is most appropriate for the tribunal to make that decision. It’s in their hands.

And they’ll look at the policies. Even if we did change the policies now, it’s the policies that were in effect at the time when the approval was granted. And that’s the Westwood field heritage conservation district. So that’s the way the OLT will approach it, I believe.

I struggle to recommend approval of this. However, I think it might be the closest we get. Some comments were talked about with few sheds. I think those are really important.

And every time that we try to put those into plans, there’s going to be somebody who says, “No.” And it’s happened every time. But they are really essential components, especially if you’re going to be looking at density and height around a public feature. So I, staff had a very unenviable task here to try and weave together a bunch of policies, a bunch of stakeholders and a bunch of their interests to try and find something that addressed all of these things. I’m not sure it gets better than this, but I’m not sure it satisfies anyone.

Thank you, Councillor Turner. If there are any other comments from committee, I see Councillor Cassidy’s hand is up. Welcome back again to the planning committee. Councillor Cassidy, I do recall bumping into you at one of the open houses along with Councillor Calabaga many, many years ago when this started too.

So I know you have great interest in the secondary plan. Go ahead. Thank you, Councillor. I think for acknowledging that I was going to say there, this has been going on for at least three years.

So a lot of work has gone into this. And as some committee members have mentioned, a lot of public engagement. That’s what happens around secondary plans. We recently finished the Masonville area secondary plan and we’re not withstanding that I do represent the area around Masonville.

Everybody has acknowledged tonight the importance of Victoria Park to the city of London and all the areas of London earlier today in the corporate services committee. We had discussions about other areas of London. All of us as Councillors, we represent our individual wards, but we recognize the importance of all of the different parts of London and how important they are to all Londoners, not just Londoners who live near those areas. I am happy to hear all of the discussion that’s gone on, especially around the affordable housing part of it.

And I continue to be in awe of staff who are continually pivoting when we get new legislation or changes to legislation from the province. City staff have done a lot of work in the area of affordable housing, trying to find means and tools where we can bring more affordable units to Londoners. And as Mr. Barrett spoke about and as Councillor Turner touched on, there are all sorts of different levels of affordability.

And that is what this committee does and Council as a whole does and our city staff, it’s about finding the appropriate mix of housing within the city of London so that all income levels can find housing that suits their needs, that is safe, that is clean, that is stable and affordable at their particular income level. So that is, I’m really pleased to hear Mr. Barrett talk about the London CMA, the Census Municipal Area, which includes St. Thomas and Outlying Regions, because that does, again, brings that affordability level down and I’m glad that Stephen Turner, Councillor Turner, highlighted that that’s where the affordability factor is put at, it’s at that average market rent.

So when you consider a luxury building and a luxury rent, those affordable units are even that much more affordable compared to the rent in that particular building because it’s applied at that average level. I agree with Councillor Turner that there is no way that every single person who is interested, every single stakeholder who is, has been engaged in this secondary plan process, not every single person is going to be 100% satisfied with where this lands. I first brought up the idea of a secondary plan when the Auburn development at Wolf and Wellington first came to planning committee, I think in 2017. And I remember asking John Fleming at the time who was our city planner, why is there not a secondary plan for Victoria Park?

This is such an important piece of real estate within the city of London and a secondary plan at the end of the day, what a secondary plan is for, is to put specificity in place to provide some protections for that specific area and to the people living around that area so that there is certainty and there are certain things that we recognize have value and we need to preserve those things that have value. Again, not everybody is happy with where this secondary plan has landed, but I have seen the changes that have taken place in particular at one point in this plan, one previous iteration considered allowing a high rise on the east side of the St. Peter’s Basilica. So I’m really happy to see that particular change and have that building height come down to four stories and record that view corridor of silica, which is a heritage in the city of London.

So I want to thank all of them, even though I know they’re not happy, the ones that spoke tonight, I want to thank them for continuing to be engaged in this process. It is a long process and it is important that everybody come and make their views heard. And I want to thank staff as well for all of the work that has gone into this. It has been extremely hard and long work and it’s been thorough.

And I’m actually pleased with where we have landed tonight. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Any other comments?

Yes, Councillor Feillan. Welcome, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. And first, before I get too deep into this, I want to thank my fellow colleagues for being here tonight and getting to listen to the conversation in fairness up until the end of October of last year, I was just someone who looked in like everyone else did.

And you know what, looking at this plan, I think Councillor Turner said it best when he said to a point, this isn’t satisfying anyone. And you know what, there are times that when you don’t satisfy anyone, that’s probably as close sometimes to success as you’re going to get. And I think that there are some real challenges in how we had to move forward. But I think staff did a good job at trying to come up with a balance for the downtown because as we look at our downtown core, I think one of the things that we can all agree on to a point is that the revitalization of our downtown is going to come from people who choose to live there at the end of the day.

And I think one of the things that we can see with the new development going into our downtown and how Londoners and people outside the city have responded to that, I think we can see people are excited for the type of housing that we’re putting into our downtown. And I think they’re feeling like they’re part of it. And let’s be honest, when we look at our communities, one of the things we want to build is strong diverse communities. And what this housing does is create a diversity that probably wasn’t there before.

But is there now, it is there today? And I think it’s important to recognize that what’s driving that community feeling and it’s people who become our neighbors at the end of the day. This is a neighborhood, that’s what this will turn into. And this will bring people into our downtown core who choose to call it home.

And I think that is so important. I think staff had to work to try and balance out the interests of a lot of people. And I think that at the end, there had to be some give and take. We knew that going through this.

And I think there has been some give and take. But I think what we’re going to end up with is an area that at the center of our city will be a vibrant dynamic area. And it will be a vibrant dynamic area for people to live, for people who choose to work in the downtown core. But most importantly, for people to call home.

And I think that’s the goal here. So I’m going to say first, I want to thank staff for doing this. I read through a lot of the documentation a few times to try and get a feel for what was the give and take as they went through. I think they did an excellent job.

On a topic that I think is a difficult topic to appease anyone. And I think we saw that tonight. I think we still see differing opinions. I agree with Councillor Turner on the lot at 562.

I think that’s something that we’re not here to debate tonight. So again, I want to thank them. And again, I want to thank my colleagues for the amount of work on this, as Councillor Cassidy said. It’s been since 2017.

You’ve been working on this to try and come up with a compromise. Do I think this is as good as it gets maybe? And I think we could keep looking at it over and over again. But I think we need something.

And that’s always what we heard from the community. The one thing that we really locked in on was we need a secondary plan. So I think I think we have something here. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Faisnallar. Any other comments? Councillor Lehman. Thank you, and thank you to my colleagues for their comments tonight.

This has been a long time coming. As has been mentioned many times. It’s an incredible challenge to get everyone to agree on an important space like Victoria Park and in the heart of our city. I think all Londoners share the passion.

That’s been expressed throughout this process by all stakeholders and the value of that park and the identification of who we are as a city. As we go through addressing the housing crisis and implementing the London plan, we deal with this a lot from neighborhoods that are affected with development with regards to infill and density. And high density and growing up, not out, is very clear that it will affect the downtown core. The challenge is how do you get there with making respecting comments from all stakeholders and trying to incorporate that into a plan that here is what people are saying and find some common ground.

We heard from the neighborhood association. Like I said, we hear from neighborhoods all the time on infill developments in the area. The only difference being is that not only is this a green space for them to enjoy, but it’s also a green space for Londoners who work downtown and who visit downtown from the surrounding area. We’ve heard from property owners tonight.

We’ve heard from developers this evening. And I think what you could hear is we don’t think we’ll ever get to a point where everyone’s happy. And I think staff, as we mentioned tonight, has done a great job listening, having many PPMs to get feedback, both from people who live down the area, but all stakeholders, including people who live outside the area. So I think we’ve come to a place where I think it’s where we need to get to.

And I don’t think delaying this will get us any further to maybe getting everything that people want to see here. With respect to the specific developments on Wellington there, or that project, I don’t believe that we should deal in hypotheticals when we’re arriving at a secondary plan. So the chips will fall where they may at the tribunal, and we’ll see where we go from here. But I think it’s time to move forward.

Let’s get this done. Let’s get some primary sets of people that are planning development in this area. Know what the city is looking for. We can get forward in developing housing much needed for the residents of London.

And while still making the downtown and the park and all areas a terrific place to live and work and play in. Thank you, Councillor Layman. And if the committee will allow me to make my comments from the chair, I want to start off, first of all, thanking staff. We’ve heard that this has been a long time coming, five years.

And I know staff have invested heavily in coming up with the secondary plan. I recall a number of years ago, they approached all of us on council trying to engage us in trying to find out what we felt was important to the secondary plan. And it wasn’t easy, but they put lots of work effort. And here we are today.

And I think that has to be acknowledged. I do believe in secondary plans. I think they’re important, especially for when we have a number of plans all merging together. And how do we move forward and plan and be consistent with our policies?

It is very, very important. I also want to thank committee members tonight. It was a really important conversation that we had here, especially around at the affordable housing piece. Because I think it’s very important every time we do have a conversation around affordable housing.

We take that opportunity to understand exactly what we are talking about when it comes to affordable housing and how it relates to the London plan as well. Those things are, I think, are constant reminders, I know, to me, but also as the public listens to us as well. I hesitate to say this given all the work that has been done and the public interest and the public engagement. But somehow, I’m sitting here feeling very disappointed, and no one is happy that I don’t think referring this back, again, is just kicking the can down the road.

We need the secondary plan to help guide us as we develop around Victoria Park. I hear the public over and over again, the beginning of our public participation meetings with the secondary plan. The community came out. They did not want a wall around Victoria Park.

And I heard that loud and clear. I often wonder where this gentle development happens in our city and kind of see it missing a little bit here. So I just do support a number of initiatives that are in the plan when it comes to, obviously, the transit on the west side, but the sustainable development. And we’ve had to compromise and balance how we develop and how we acknowledge the heritage component.

It’s how we’re going to do that. I’m not sure. I still have concerns, but we have to do something and I think this is the beginning. We do know that Victoria Park is a jewel to all of Londoners.

And we do need to be sensitive and how we move forward. Well, we have a plan here and it is a start. So I will be supporting the recommendation before us tonight. Thank you.

And I will go to committee members to bring forward a motion. I’ll move the staff recommendation. We have Councillor Layman bringing forward the motion. And Councillor Lewis seconding it.

And if there are no further comments from anyone, we can proceed to vote. Opposed in the vote. So motion carries 4-0. Thank you, Councillors.

And with that, we can move on to number four items for direction. We do not— Excuse me, Madam Chair, sorry if I may. I hate to interrupt. Just before you move off that, if I may.

Yes, go ahead. Mr. Mayor, sorry, I want to thank the committee. But also, I didn’t want to leave this without acknowledging the leadership of Britto Hagen through this process.

As you know, Ms. O’Hagen is off on a parental leave at this time. But Ms. O’Hagen, we spoke to this going back to 2017, was the leader through this process.

And then there have been many staff because of the time that has gone on. But there have been many staff who participated in this. And I just wanted to acknowledge their participation. And in particular, Ms.

O’Hagen’s for having shepherded it to the point where you did see it back in March. And then we’ve been able to bring it forward based on all that work. So I just wanted to get that out just before we moved off this item. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for stepping in. It is important to acknowledge the great work that staff have done. And in particular, Ms.

O’Hagen— I know she started the whole process a number of years ago. So thank you. And with that, we do have a motion in front of us. Oh, we’ve already voted on that.

We have next up items for direction. There are none. Next up, deferred matters, additional business. You have 5.1, which is the deferred matters list.

Councillor Lewis. I’ll move the deferred matters list. Thank you. And I’m looking for a seconder on that one then.

Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0. I do have a chairman looking for a motion. Councillor Lewis.

Seconded by Councillor Lehman. Can we do a hand vote on this one? Hand vote, everyone. I think we’ve got some extra hands up.

But thank you very much, committee. Good work.