May 30, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:01 PM, with Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair, Councillor S. Lewis 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. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That Items 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   58 Sunningdale Road West (39T-16503)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 58 Sunningdale Rd West 39T-16503

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the request for a three (3) year extension of the draft plan of subdivision approval for the draft plan submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (File No. 39T-16503), prepared by MTE and certified by P.R. Levac OLS, (File No 50861-102, dated May 18, 2022), as red-lined amended, which shows 41 single detached lots, two (2) residential part blocks, three (3) medium density blocks, one (1)  commercial block, one (1) road widening block, and four (4) 0.3m reserve blocks all served by an extension of Callingham Drive, an extension of Pelkey Road, and three (3) new local streets, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Schedule “A”.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed

2.2   890 Upperpoint Avenue (P-9358)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 890 Upperpoint Avenue - P-9358

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sifton Properties Ltd., the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to exempt Block 141, Plan 33M-754 and Block 42, Plan 33M-810 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

2.3   3195 White Oak Road (H-9471)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 3195 White Oak Road - H-9471

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Econ Consultant Ltd., relating to the property located at 3195 White Oak Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-94*R1-3(21)) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(21)) Zone to remove the “h-94” holding provision.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.4   1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West (39T-04510_5)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West - 39T-04510_5

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc., for the subdivision of land over Concession 5, Part Lot 23, situated on the south side of Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Hyde Park Road, municipally known as 1284 and 1388 Sunningdale Road West:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Foxhollow North Kent Developments Inc., for the Foxhollow North Kent Subdivision, Phase 5 (39T-04510) appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b) the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “B”;

c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “C”; and,

d) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed

2.5   525 Dufferin Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application (HAP22-031-L)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 525 Dufferin Avenue - HAP22-031-L

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to replace the porch railings/guard on the heritage designated property at 525 Dufferin Avenue, within the East Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED with the following terms and conditions:

a) all exposed wood be painted;

b) the installation of the proposed porch railings/guards be completed within twelve months of Municipal Council’s decision on this Heritage Alteration Permit; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.6   Building Division Monthly Report - March, 2022

2022-05-30 PEC SR Building Dvision Monthly Report March 2022

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That the Building Division Monthly Report for the month of March, 2022  BE RECEIVED for information.   (2022-A23)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Definition of ” Public Park” in Zoning By-law Z-1 / City-Wide

2022-05-30 PEC SR - City Wide Definition of Parks - Z-9469

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the City-initiated zoning by-law review, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning definition for Public Park;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter;

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

  •    is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020);

  •    conforms with the policies of the London Plan, specifically in regards to the Green Space Place Type and the Parks and Recreation chapter;

  •    will enable uses and activities in city-owned parks that are consistent with the Parks and Recreation By-law (PR-2); and,

  •    represents good planning.     (2022-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   537 Crestwood Drive (Z-9333)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 537 Crestwood Avenue - Z-9333

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium 816, relating to the property located at 537 Crestwood Drive, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision h-(   )R6-2()) Zone;

it being noted that the following site plan matters were raised during the public participation process:

i) an amendment to the registered Plan of Condominium 816 is required;

ii) warning clauses to be registered on title regarding noise and dust related to gravel pit and rehabilitation activities; and,

iii) warning clauses to be registered on title regarding possible noise impacts from the future realigned Commissioners Road East;

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., on behalf of the Middlesex Vacant Land Condominium 816;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment and requires resource extraction activities to be protected for long-term use and not hindered by incompatible development; and that resource extraction activities and sensitive residential development be appropriately separated from each other. A holding provision is recommended to ensure a new geotechnical study is required to establish the limit of development related to the slope hazard and evaluate the potential impacts of the future construction of the Commissioners Road West realignment; and to ensure a rehabilitation plan and site restoration plan have been completed for the adjacent aggregate resource extraction area;

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential designation and the Specific Area policies for Lands in the Vicinity of Byron Gravel Pits.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   Demolition Request for the Heritage Listing Property at 180 Simcoe Street

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 180 Simcoe Street - Demolition Request - Complete

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property at 180 Simcoe Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources.

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   258 Richmond Street (Z-9465)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 258 Richmond Street- Z-9465

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc., relating to the property located at 258 Richmond Street, the proposed revised by-law appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan (The London Plan, 2016) and the 1989 Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC3/RSC4) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-*BDC()) Zone;

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

-    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Urban Corridor Place Type for the SoHo Main Street Specific Segment.

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor (MSCC); and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of the existing building and allow a broader range of uses that are appropriate for the context of the site.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   850 Highbury Avenue North - Request for Demolition

2022-06-20 PEC SR - 850 Highbury Avenue North Demolition_Redacted

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development with the

advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the removal of (8) non-designated built resources on the heritage designated property at 850 Highbury Avenue North, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

a) during demolition, construction fencing and buffering of sensitive areas be implemented per Project Site Plan appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix C;

b) during demolition, restrict construction routes to areas outside the treed allee; and,

c) pre-, during, and post-demolition, implement recommendations of the PreConstruction Analysis appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix D;

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

-    B. McCauley, Old Oak Properties;

-    K. Eby, GMPS, on behalf of JDA Investments Inc.; and,

-    N. Tausky, on behalf of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

“d)  the applicant BE REQUESTED to photographically document and chronical, to the degree possible, the north and south pavilion and the connecting building.”

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   1503 Hyde Park Road (Z-9425)

2022-05-30 PEC SR - 1503 Hyde Park Road - Z-9425

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2575707 Ontario Corp. (c/o Business Network Associates), relating to the property located at 1503 Hyde Park Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Business District Commercial (h-91BDC1/BDC2) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-91BDC1(_)/BDC2) Zone;

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

i) provide sufficient common outdoor amenity space based on the number of units proposed and/or provide detailed design and program solutions for the area;

ii) review alternative vehicular access arrangements as opposed to the shared vehicular access point with 1435 Hyde Park Road; and,

iii) consider additional landscaping and use of planters along this section of Hyde Park Road consistent with Urban Design’s first submission comments to ensure that planters are aligned parallel to the street with a 0.15m curb to clearly define the clearway;

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

  •  the project summary from M. Davis, Siv-ik; and,

  •  a communication dated May 26, 2022 from J. Haasen;

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

-    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Business Network Associates; and,

-    J. Haasen, 70 Dissing Crescent;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor designation and is in keeping with the Hyde Park Community Plan and Urban Design Guidelines;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   850 Highbury Avenue (OZ-9324)

2022-06-20 PEC SR- 850 Highbury Avenue North - OZ-9324 - Complete

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, based on the application by Old Oak Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North, and with respect to housekeeping amendments to the approved London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 14, 2022 to DELETE the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan in its entirety and ADOPT the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated May 30, 2022 as Appendix “A”, Schedule “1”;

it being noted that the specific policy changes to the existing London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan, that will result from the deletion of the existing plan and the adoption of the new revised plan, are outlined in Appendix B of the above-noted staff report;

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

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

-    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Old Oak Properties Inc.; and,

-    K. Eby, GMPS representing JDA Investments Inc.;

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

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

  •    the proposed official plan amendment conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Transit Village Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies..   (2022-D09/R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

5.1   (ADDED) 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2022-05-26 CACP Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on May 26, 2022:

a)  the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a report, dated May 26, 2022, with respect to the Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property located at 180 Simcoe Street by Richmond Corporate Centre Inc. and the CACP supports the staff recommendation and the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment; it being noted that the CACP recommends the preservation of trees to mitigate potential impacts to adjacent cultural heritage resources;

b)  the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a report, dated May 26, 2022, with respect to the Demolition Request for Non-Designated Built Resources on the Heritage Designated Property located at 850 Highbury Avenue North - the former London Psychiatric Hospital Lands by Old Oak Properties and the CACP supports the staff recommendation;

c)   the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the London Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) received a report, dated May 26, 2022, with respect to a Heritage Alteration Permit Application by E. Placzek at 525 Dufferin Avenue, East Woodfield Heritage Conservation District and the CACP supports the staff recommendation; and,

d)  clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.7, inclusive, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1 to 6.3, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   Instructions for OLTAppeal, OLT-22-002053 (2624 Woodhull Road) - File No. A.146/21 and B.008/21

Moved by E. Holder

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and  officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.   (2022-L01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes, in Closed Session, from 6:11 PM to 6:28 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:31 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, 17 minutes)

Welcome everyone to the 11th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupinee, Pei, and the Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, 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, 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 service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca.

I would like to start off with number one disclosures of pecuniary interest. Are there any? I see none, and I would also like to like committee members know that Councillor Steve Lehman will not be joining us this evening. Before I start on with the consent items, I would like to go to staff, Mr.

Greg Barrett. I know we have a special announcement to make here at the Planning and Environment Committee, Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Madam Chair.

As most of the committee knows, I would like to just inform them that on the 25th of May, we received the final decision from the Ontario Land Tribunal that finished the London Plan Appeal process, which now means that the London Plan is in full force and effect. We still have some outstanding site-specific appeals, but the policies of the plan, all of its maps are now in place and can be used as the basis for our application review as we go forward. We’re going to be bringing a report forward to the committee at the next pack on the 20th of June. But if I may, I just want to take this opportunity just to have a bit of a shout out and a thanks.

Thanks to the Councils, thanks to the staff and thanks to the citizens of London. This has been a bit of a long road, and I just want to share just a little bit of the chronology on this, just so that folks understand the process we’ve been through and the journey that we’ve all taken. This actually started back in January of 2012, and we brought forward a terms of reference to the Council of the Day that set out the process for developing the London Plan. We called it Rethink London, and that was the process we were going to go through.

And that terms of reference was a real stretch. That terms of reference actually laid out a community consultation program. It did not lay out a terms of reference for preparing an official plan. It didn’t say we were going to do a commercial review.

It didn’t say we were going to do a land needs review and put all those schedules up in front of the Committee and Council, because we knew that we had to do those. What we came forward with and got the concurrence of the Council was to go forward on a process that spoke to Londoners about developing a plan for all of London and what Londoners wanted to see their city look like in 2035. Three Councils, two planning directors, and three staff lawyers later, we now have that plan in front of you. After that report back in 2012, we lived to that what we tried to set forward in that terms of reference.

We kicked off this process in an unusual way. We had Peter Mansbridge Convention Center with 1,300 people in attendance. And at that meeting, it was actually a call to action to the residents of London to participate and become part of the process. Because as Mr.

Brent Mansbridge said at that meeting, you have to be part of this. You have to celebrate the democracy that you live in by participating in the process. It’s going to put forward the document that’s going to guide the decisions that the Councils make about land use in the city. And Londoners delivered, Council delivered, and I would suggest to you that staff delivered, I’m bringing this forward to you.

The steps that we went through after that May 2012 kickoff was the first draft came to Council in May of 2014, second draft in May of 2015, and the final plan in June of 2016. So it was six years and two weeks ago that this committee had the final public meeting and adopted the plan. And it went to Council on June the 23rd of 2016. By December of 2016, we actually had provincial approval.

So Council and the citizens of London took an idea and in four years ran that idea through three versions and a final adopted plan. The province took six months to do their review. But in that time, it’s now taken more than six years to get through the OLT process, to get this plan in force and effect and in front of you. And that’s what I would really like to celebrate.

Again, my thanks to Council, my thanks to the Council’s who’ve been with us through this process. My thanks to all the staff who participated in this process. And my thanks to the citizens of London who participated in the process by helping us develop the plan, which I’m gonna boast again, was an award-winning plan, four national awards for this plan that this Council is working from. And just say to all of you, my gratitude and my thanks for having been part of that process with us and being part of what has we are now able to celebrate with the full plan in force and effect that we can use as we go forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. And I’d like to just remind committee members that we will be receiving a report at our next PEC meeting.

We’ll be able to make comments and debate the London plan at that time. I think it’s really important that we right now just acknowledge and on behalf of the planning and environment committee, my thanks right back to city staff and to the previous councils and this council as well as to Londoners. And I just want to echo Mr. Barrett’s comments and look forward to committee members receiving the report at our next planning committee meeting, which I think is June the 20th.

And we will be able to have that discussion and a debate at that time. So if I wonder if I can go to Councillor Lewis for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, I think it’s just important and of course echoing your thanks to the staff for all the work that they’ve done.

I know that this was communicated to councilors by Mr. Barrett, but I think for the public and those who may be watching, it’s important to clarify as well. So through you, can I ask Mr. Barrett to clarify, we will still be operating with applications that are already in process under what you described, I think in our communication as clergy rules that the applications that were received while parts of the 1989 official plan were still in effect will still be heard under those considerations, but that all the new applications going forward will now only be reviewed under the auspices of London plan.

Oh, Mr. Barrett for that question then. Yes, thank you. Few Madam Chair, yes, that’s correct.

So the clergy principle quite simply is the rules in play, the rules of the day are the rules in play. So the rules that were in place when the application was made are the rules that we use in the review of those applications they come forward. We’ve got some of those in front of you tonight. The only difference is going to be is that as an outcome of that, we had to make an amendment to the ‘89 plan.

We’ll no longer be bringing those amendments to you because there’s no plan to amend, but those policies will be part of the consideration of the recommendation that will be in front of you. So that’s the way it’s going to work. And you’ve got a few of those on your agenda tonight. You’ll have a few more of them as we go forward, but from this point forward, those applications that come in the door will just be reviewed completely under the London plan policies.

Councillor Lewis. That’s great. And that was my understanding from the communication Mr. Barrett sent, but I just thought it was important that we make sure that that was clarified for those who may be watching tonight as well.

‘Cause I suspect we may reference the 1989 official plan during an application or two this evening. So that I just wanted it to be clear to everybody that that was the reason why. So thank you for explaining that to everyone, Mr. Barrett.

And congratulations to you and your team for shepherding this through. Thank you. And look forward to receiving the report on June the 20th. So moving on now to consent items.

Any comments or anyone wishing to pull a consent item? I don’t see any. So I am looking for a motion to approve the consent items. Councillor Hillier, seconded by the mayor.

Any comments? And with that, we can go to vote. Chair with apologies, of course, but I’ll be doing my votes verbally tonight. It’s the mayor.

And you were voting yes. Sorry, it just kind of cut out. Just want to confirm. Absolutely, absolutely voting yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Turner, closing the vote. The motion carries, bye.

Thank you. And moving on to the schedule items. And just before we get started, I want to bring to committee members attention the added latch report that is added on the added agenda. And just to bring my apologies, it’s no longer latch.

It is the community advisory committee on planning. And there are three items in that report that pertain to a number of items. And I’ll just bring it to your attention. 5.1, it relates to 525 different avenue.

2.2 relates to 180 Simcoe Street. And 2.3 relates to 850 Highbury Avenue as well. So just to inform committee members. And we’ll start off now with the schedule items 3.1 is a public participation meeting.

Regarding the definition of public part, I’m looking for someone to open the public participation meeting. Mayor Holder, seconded by Councillor Turner. I’m sure if the voting is open, my screen is a little wonky. So I’m just going to refresh, but I’ll put yes.

In the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Without any questions, comments from committee members. Looking for a motion as well. And this is just to remind committee members that we are redefining, allowing updating our public parks to incorporate special events and minor retail.

Councillor Lewis brings forward the motion. I’m looking for a seconder. Sorry, I missed some hands. Councillor Hill here.

Any questions, comments? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ringing through on the page where it has the by-law and 2.4, there’s an underlying section that starts with public park and it goes in addition to the permitted uses of the park.

Is that the only change that’s being made to the by-law from what I can see here? It looks like that’s the case, but I just want to confirm it. Councillor Turner, I know it’s a question and I think it’s a technical question. I have just opened the public participation meeting a little bit ahead of myself.

So just before I go to committee members, I wonder if I can go to the public to see if there’s any comments. My apologies. My apologies, Madam Chair. It seems like we were steaming through rather quickly, so that makes sense.

Yeah, my apologies. If there’s anyone here that would like to make a comment to the changes in the definition of public parks, if they would like to come forward. I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to make comments to the changes in the definition of technical change to our public parks. I see none.

I will ask for a motion to close the public participation meeting, what I meant to say. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Mayor Holder. I’ll vote yes, Chair. closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Now we can have it from the committee. The motion is moved by Councillor Lewis, and I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Hellier.

And I will now go to questions. Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s for you.

Just a quick question is the small, is that the only amendment that’s been proposed here is the sentence in addition to the permitted uses of park, public parks may also be used for special events and selling refreshments or other merchandise to the public subject to being authorized under the London Parks and Recreation By-law. It looks like that’s the only amendment I just wanted to confirm that’s the case. Through the Chair, that’s correct. Those are the only changes.

Very good, thank you. And with that, I see no other questions, comments from committee, and we can proceed to vote. I’ll go to the meeting. Again, Chair, I’ll vote yes.

closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. And moving on now to our second item, which is another public participation meeting, 3.2 for five, three, seven. Press would drive.

I am looking for someone to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Hillier. Seconded by Councillor Turner. Yes, Chair.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. A brief presentation from staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Elena Riley here, Senior Planner with Development Services.

This is an application at 537 Crestwood. The application is for a zoning amendment to allow a single detached dwelling on the rear of the property within an existing condo development. Staff have looked through the process, have determined that the proposal for a residential single-family detached home would be an appropriate land use on the subject site. However, they are recommending a very site-specific holding provision for the site to ensure that the gravel pit has ceased and is no longer operating.

And they’ve also, through the holding provision, wanted to ensure that a geotechnical study has been completed. And so for the reasoning to make sure we can address the erosion hazard limit and address any potential erosion hazards based on the development. Thank you. Thank you.

Any technical questions from committee members? The none, I know, I understand the applicant or applicant’s consultant is here as well. I can go to the applicant. That’s good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

It’s Harry Frucio’s from Zilinka, Preamal, here on behalf of Middlesex vacant land condominium 816 regarding this rezoning application at 537 Crestwood Drive. I just want to thank staff for their assistance in working with my client to bring forward a recommendation for your consideration this afternoon. Madam Chair, I will be brief as well with my presentation and will certainly be available to answer any questions from the public and committee members. The proposed development of these lands for three single detached dwellings has been before counsel previously originating back in 2012.

Two of the dwellings were approved and have been constructed since that time. The third dwelling which is before you today has not been approved due to known compatibility issues between the proposed residential use and the abutting resource extraction activities. Our client’s desire is to construct the third dwelling at the west end of the property consistent with the official plan and London plan permissions as well as the approved zoning for the previous two dwellings. However, we do acknowledge that there is an active pit license to permit extraction within the Byron gravel pit prior to development of the third dwelling.

We understand that the extraction activities may be near completion due to the surrender active pit licenses and rehabilitation of other areas of the aggregate pit. And I such believe that this is a good opportunity now to establish the intended use of the subject lands while still acknowledging that additional support material needs to be provided once the active license has been surrendered for the area of biting the subject lands. So we agree and accept staff’s recommendation to approve the application of the holding provision that cannot be removed until all activities have ceased to exist in the abutting aggregate pit. And the appropriate reports have been prepared and submitted to the city’s satisfaction.

The holding provision is an appropriate and often used tool to address compatibility matters between land uses such as noise, vibration or erosion while still recognizing the ability for the lands to develop in accordance with their intended plan purpose at the appropriate time. In my opinion, the holding provision should address the comments and concerns of the aggregate pit operator. As no development can occur until the operator releases the active license and rehabilitates the aggregate pit. And lastly, the holding provision provides our client with a level of comfort knowing that the lands can be developed in the future.

In accordance with their intended purpose and does not have to reapply an encouragement application fees at a future date. That concludes my presentation, Madam Chair. And again, I’m open to questions if there are any, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Fusius. Moving on now to the public. If there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation if they can come forward, please. Last one more time.

If there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. Joe Brineck, did you wish to speak to this matter? And I’ll last one more time, less time. If there’s anyone that would like to speak to this application, please come forward.

See none, I’ll go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Hill here, seconded by. Councillor Lewis, thank you. If we can proceed to vote.

Chair, I’ll vote yes. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. It is for questions, comments, or moving.

The no questions from any committee members. I do have a couple, but Councillor Lewis, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Everybody’s very relaxed tonight, but I’ll move the staff recommendation forward and see if there’s a seconder for that.

Chair, Mr. Mayor, I’m happy to second that. Hey, any further questions, comments from committee members? I do have a couple and the committee will allow me to speak here from the chair.

And that is, I know that this holding provision, it’s a special holding provision specifically to deal with the number of outstanding issues, the geotext study, and I do have a question around the licensing of the contractor for the PIT. Any idea or expectations on when we can see the rehabilitation or the licensing being finalized and the rehabilitation of the Byron PIT moving forward? Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s first page from plan development.

Really, the timing is left in the licensees’ hands. So that portion of the gravel pit is currently has a license from Lafarge and Lafarge has to complete some remediation work, which they filed with Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry upon completion of the extraction. From my knowledge, the equipment for extraction has been removed. They have been doing some rehabilitation work along the south shore of the pit and a little bit along the east side.

But I don’t believe it’s brought back to the full restoration that it’s required. So there is no timeframe established for them. It is solely left up to the timing of Lafarge. Thank you, Mr.

Page. I know it’s a conversation out there and I really appreciate the further clarification where we are with the rehabilitation of the PIT. I am supportive of this moving forward. I know staff have worked with the applicant and feel comfortable with it being a residential use.

The importance of this holding provision, I think is also important to deal with how the aggregate resource extraction is going to continue and given the importance around the geotech and the studies. And I want to thank the applicant. I know there have been, this came to us before and there was the noise in the dust study that wasn’t completed. So it’s good to see that we’re moving slowly ahead with this zoning amendment.

So with that, we can vote. Any further comments from committee members? I don’t see any. And if we can proceed to vote.

Chair, I’ll vote yes. A little technical glitch here. Are there any microphones on that should not be on? Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, moving on to our next public participation meeting which is 3.3. This is a demolition request for the heritage listing property at 180 Simcoe. Street, I’m looking to open up the public participation meeting moved by the mayor, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll vote yes, Chair.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. But then we do have a quick verbal on this if I can go to staff. Thank you and good afternoon. This is the demolition request for the heritage listed property at 180 Simcoe Street, which has been included on the register since 2007 when it was adopted under the Ontario Heritage Act.

As part of this demolition request for the heritage listed property at 180 Simcoe Street, the heritage impact assessment was submitted and is appended to the staff report. The heritage impact assessment completed an evaluation of the property using the mandated criteria of Ontario Regulation 906. The evaluation found that the property does not meet the criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff have reviewed the evaluation and agree with its conclusion.

Staff are recommending that the property at 180 Simcoe Street be removed from the register of cultural heritage resources, which will allow the demolition to proceed. In addition, the property at 180 Simcoe Street is adjacent to the heritage designated property at 224 to 226 Richmond Street, which is an Italianate double house from the 1880s with historical associations to the Agnose family and London’s Greek community. The heritage impact assessment has demonstrated that the heritage attributes of that heritage designated property will be conserved by the proposed redevelopment at 180 Simcoe Street and also has recommended cautionary mitigation measures, which can be implemented through the site plan approval process. As chair, you noted just a few moments ago, the community advisory committee on planning was consulted on this demolition request at its meeting last week on May 26th with its report as item 5.1 of your added agenda tonight.

The community advisory committee on planning supported the staff recommendation with the additional recommendation to retain trees to mitigate potential impacts on the adjacent cultural heritage resource on Richmond Street. I’d be very happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Ganyone.

Any technical questions? And with that, I see none. I would like to go now to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the recommendation coming forward, please come forward.

And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this demolition request, the and here none. So with that, I’ll go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hellier. Yes, chair.

Closing the vote. The motion carries by. And I’ll go to committee members looking for a motion for comments from committee. Councillor Lewis.

I’ll move the staff recommendation, Madam Chair. I’m looking for a seconder, Mr. Mayor. Any other comments, I see none.

And with that, we can proceed to vote. I’ll vote yes, chair. Closing the vote. The motion carries by— And we’re moving on to number 3.4, which is a public participation meeting for 258 Richmond Street, keen to open up the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Turner. Yes, chair. Councillor Turner, closing the vote. The motion carries by to zero.

With that, I wonder if I can go to staff for a quick verbal on this one. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Anusha from the Planning Department. This is for a 258 Richmond Street.

The property is located along Richmond Street, east of the Richmond and Horton Street, East intersection. The site currently contains a two-story building, which is currently being used as an art gallery on the ground floor and a legal nonconforming residential unit on the upper floor. The applicants are proposing to rezone the property from multiple restricted service commercial zones to a holding business district commercial special provision zone. The rezoning would recognize the existing conditions of the site in regard to parking, lot coverage, and lot frontage.

And would also allow the uses permitted within the BDC zone, which represent a broader range of commercial and residential land uses than what is currently permitted in the existing RSC zones. The rezoning application would also permit hotel and assembly halls. And a holding provision is also being recommended due to the property’s proximity to the C and railway line in order to ensure adequate noise and mitigation measures are implemented should any sensitive uses be proposed on the lands in the future. No exterior alterations or physical changes to the site configuration are proposed as part of this application.

Thank you. Any technical questions? Councillor Turner. Further quickly, the BDC zone pretty much allows for almost anything, right?

It’s the broadest category of approvals and allowances. Or is there— is this scoped somewhat in terms of the permitted uses on this site? Through the chair, that is correct. It mainly allows most of the uses that you would expect to see on the Main Street corridor.

And allows a lot of the uses that are already in the RSC zone, adding hotels and assembly halls as additional permitted uses. Thank you. Go to— for technical questions of visiting Councillor, Mr. 5-mil-R, Mr.

5-mil-R, Councillor 5-mil-R, please proceed. You’ve got your hand up. Is it a technical question? And you’re on mute.

Please proceed. Thank you, Chair. And through you, just a staff, with the changes that are here, there are a couple businesses that are directly to the north of this property. And I just want to ensure, as their access point to their property comes in off of Horton, that the changes that we’re making will not affect that access to those businesses.

Through the chair, that is correct. So no physical changes are being made as part of this application in regard to access off of Horton. The provisions simply look to recognize the existing conditions that are already on site. Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other technical questions? Do you know what I would like to go to?

Is the applicant here? If there’s anyone from the public that would like to make comments to this recommendation? Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Jersey Smalleric.

And I’m here to represent the applicants for who I am, the applicant. Yes, welcome. And please proceed. So good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members.

As some of you may know, my name is Jersey Smalleric. I am one of the co-founders of civic planning design and urban planning firm located here in London. Typically, our firm would be in front of you representing a client for development project. However, I want to clarify that today I’m representing Civic as the owner of the property at 258 Richmond Street.

As we own the property, our firm had hired an independent planning consultant for this rezoning to act as our agent for a process. Unfortunately, he cannot join us tonight for the meeting. With that being said, we want to acknowledge that we are in full support of staff’s recommendation. And we want to thank staff, in particular Nusha Singh and Mike Corby for being very helpful and attentive throughout the entire rezoning process.

And I want to thank you for your time this afternoon. And I will be here in a bill for any questions that arise about the application. Thank you, Mr. Smalleric.

And I’m just going to move on and ask if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation. And I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. And with that, I’ll go to committee to close the public participation meeting.

Madam Chair, I might just a technical question for the applicant to comment. Yes, please proceed. As for you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Smalleric.

I’m just curious about what the intended use is. If I might ask that the VDC provides quite a broad range. But given that your firm is the applicant, might actually give some hints as to what that might be. That’s correct.

So we do intend to, at some point in time, have our offices out of this building, as well as offer ultimate flexibility to the building in terms of being within that designation of the Main Street designation. We want to make sure that we can avail ourselves of the different uses that could occur in this building. That really is kind of a purpose-built mixed-use building already. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, I’m looking to committee to close the public participation meeting. Moved by the mayor, seconded by Councillor Turner. I’ll vote yes, Chair.

Closing the vote. The motion carries. And I just want to bring to the committee, we do have a revised by-law. And just to let them know, it is a revision of the lot coverage.

We had it down as a maximum of 75%. It should be 85%. And with that, looking for comments, Mr. Mayor.

Chair, I’m prepared to, with that clarification, 85%, move the staff recommendation. And looking for a seconder, Councillor Hillier. Any questions, comments? Councillor Turner.

Thanks. Just really quick comments. I think the application is appropriate. Recognizing the legal non-conforming use and kind of making it a little bit more legal is helpful.

When I saw the changes in the lot area coverage, my first question was what’s going to be added, but it really was just to recognize the existing state. The business district commercial is a fairly broad category to provide outside of the downtown area. So that was the other thing that got my antenna up a little bit. The proposed use and the circumstance, I think, is appropriate, are not too concerned.

When I see broad, broad permissions being applied to a site, I start to think what could be there in the future. This gives the applicant a future movement and a saleability of the site as well for different purposes. But I’m not thinking of anything that might be incompatible or threatening to the neighborhood itself. So I’m comfortable with this.

And in general, I think when we see a fairly large move to a broad category, we should be asking a few questions. And just be aware of what the implications could be. But I think in this circumstance, it’s appropriate, so I’m happy to support the motion and the request. Thank you for those comments.

Any other comments from committee members that we have a motion on the floor if we can proceed to vote? Chair, I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0.

And we’re moving on and now to 3.5. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we’re good with timing. 3.5, which is a public participation meeting on the demolition request for the non-designated built resources on the heritage designated property at 850 Hiberi Avenue, which is Hiberi Avenue north, the former London psychiatric hospital lands. And with that, I’m looking to open up our public participation meeting.

Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Turner. I’ll vote yes. Closing the vote. The motion carries by.

And I would like to now go to staff for a verbal on this one. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Michael Gregwell. I can provide a quick verbal introduction to this file.

This report, as you noted, is prepared in response to a demolition request submitted by Old Oak Properties to remove eight of the non-designated built resources on the former London psychiatric hospital lands at 850 Hiberi Avenue north. In 2000, the property was designated pursuant to part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. In four of the buildings, four of the existing buildings on the property have been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest. This includes the Chapel of Hope, the Horse Stable, the Infirmary, and the Recreation Hall, along with a number of other landscape features.

In addition, there are a number of built resources that do not contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. And some of those buildings are the subject of this demolition request. In addition to the Heritage designation, a heritage conservation easement agreement dated January 16th, 2019 is also registered on the title of the property with the Ontario Heritage Trust. On April 5th, 2022, a demolition request was submitted by Old Oak Properties seeking approval to demolish eight of the non-designated built resources on the property.

These demolitions are being requested due to redevelopment that is proposed on the subject plan and as a first phase of building our vehicles. The eight non-designated buildings included within the demolition request are identified as the North Pavilion building, the Ontario government building, the tractor barn, the greenery, the soccer shed, the potting shed, the laundry building, and the powerhouse. And these buildings are identified one through eight on the map included in Appendix B to the staff report. A heritage impact assessment was not required as a part of the complete application for this specific demolition request.

However, a heritage impact assessment was required for the Official Plan Amendment and zoning by-law amendment for the property. The heritage impact assessment prepared for that application identified the potential impacts from demolition and construction activity and recommended appropriate mitigation strategies. Perception 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act from reviewing a demolition application on a heritage designated property council must either consent to the application, consent to the application with terms and conditions, or refuse the application. Decision is required within 90 days of receipt of the demolition request.

So for this request, the 90 days expires on July 4th, 2022 in considering the removal of the eight built resources, staff note the following in the application that the resources do not contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and are not identified in the heritage designating by-law or heritage conservation easement agreement, the removal will not negatively impact the cultural heritage value of poor interest of the property and to mitigate the risk of any potential impacts to the remaining heritage designated resources, a strategy to carry out a precondition survey, vibration monitoring and post-condition survey have been proposed. Further to that, find a pre-construction analysis for the purposes of vibration assessment and monitoring has already been prepared and clear follow-up monitoring measures have been identified. Finally, potential impacts to the remaining heritage designated resources will be sufficiently mitigated through construction buffering or fencing, restriction of construction routes, and monitoring demolition vibration impacts. So in considering this application, heritage staff’s recommendation is that the, sorry, is that the demolition of these eight non-designated built resources should be permitted with the following conditions.

A, during demolition, construction fencing and buffering of sensitive areas is to be implemented for project site plan, which is included in the appendix C of the staff report, and that during the demolition construction routes be restricted to outside of the treat LA and C, that pre-during and post-demolition recommendations of the pre-construction analysis and the appendix DV implemented. Thank you very much. I’m happy to take any questions. Thank you, any technical questions.

I see none. I would like to see if there’s anyone here from the applicant. Good evening, Madam Chair. This is Ben McCauley from Old Oak Properties.

I’m just simply here to answer any questions committee may have. Thanks very much. Thank you for introducing yourself and thank you for being here. I’d like to now go to the public.

If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. My name is Kevin Eby. I’d like to speak to this. I’m a Planning Consultant for JDA Investment Sync.

Yes, Mr. Eby. I just welcome to Planning and Environment Committee. I just want to bring to your attention you have up to five minutes and thank you for identifying yourself.

Please proceed. Thank you very much. As I said, my name is Kevin Eby. I’m with the EBGMPS.

It’s a Planning Consultant for another Waterloo. I represent JDA Investment Sync. They own the property at 535 properties at 535 and 539 commercial crescent. They’re located immediately adjacent to the Southwest portion of the proposed London Psychiatric Hospital redevelopment.

And the industry, they run a small industry on the site that uses the rail spur and operates several small silos as part of their operations. And there is noise generated from the site. A noise study was done supporting the development and it proposes a series of mitigation measures that include the use of a class forward designation, the use of a class forward designation for some of the lands, berms, warning clauses and the use of a multiple dwelling constructed on the lands and virtually immediately adjacent to the site as a buffer. JDA Investments has no objection to the proposed development.

We need to work with the developer and the city to ensure that the noise conditions identify the noise study are properly implemented. We’ve supplied a letter recommending some conditions that would in fact accomplish that. And we’re waiting to hear back from staff and your legal department with respect to some of them. It certainly our intent to participate cooperatively where we have no interest in stopping this development provider, we can properly secure the noise conditions to ensure my clients lands can continue to operate.

And it’s our goal to work with both the applicant and staff to accomplish that. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to make comments to the recommendation before us? Yes, are you going to be speaking to the demolition request here in front of us?

If you are, if you can just identify yourself with your name, address if you wish and just to let you know you have up to five minutes. I’d like to speak but I’m not certain it’s my turn. It is. - Oh, okay.

Yes. Thank you. My name is Nancy Towski. I’m an advisor to the ACO board and I’m going to be making a request that was approved by the board at their last meeting but because of awkward timing between that meeting and getting a letter into the adids, I’m simply making this request orally now and we will have a letter into the council meeting.

First, we wanted to say that we’d like to compliment city staff and old old properties for devising a revised development plan for the LPH that respects the heritage buildings and the context of the London psychiatric hospital in its earlier phases. And we don’t request any of the requested demolitions but here’s our request. We would like to have the North Pavilion building number one on the map of presently requested demolitions as well as the South Pavilion building and the built complex in between thoroughly documented with photographs and the preservation of whatever plans may exist for those buildings. The reason is that this building in really completes the record of the changing historical attitudes towards the treatment of psychiatric patients that was offered or is offered by the earliest buildings on the site.

And I can elaborate on that a bit if you’d like under its first two supervisors, Henry Landor and Richard Moore’s book. The then London Asylum for the insane developed policies, excuse me, that encouraged useful activity among its patients, for example, farming is represented by the horse stable, building is represented by the chapel and increasingly as time went on, as Senate values were also encouraged. Note the LA and the other features of landscaping and forms of entertainment came to be considered increasingly important as later emphasized in the recreation center. The surgery attached to the attempt to provide updated and experimental medical treatments during the same period.

However, the greater number of patients requiring psychiatric treatment during and after the second world war as well as substantial medical advances brought an end to this relatively relaxed quote, moral treatment of patients, resolving in the need for largely facilities with greater technical capabilities. The hub and spoke layouts of the north and south pavilions allowed for patients to retain connections to the outdoor world through, for example, windows in each room, along with greater privacy and a centralized coordination system. The documentation of these buildings will finish the historical story of 19th and 20th century psychological treatment that is begun by the more historical buildings that are fortunately to remain on the hospital campus. And I appreciate any consideration you can give to this request.

Thank you, Ms. Toski. And if I can just get confirmation of the two pavilions that you’re asking to document and preserve are the north and the south pavilion, I just want to— Yes, that’s correct. Make sure it’s just the two buildings.

Thank you for that clarification. No, but it’s also a built complex in between them. And I’d like that to be part of it as well. Thank you.

And with that, I’d like to move on to if there’s anyone else that would like to speak to this recommendation if they can come forward. And I’ll ask one more time. There’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation here and see none. And with that, I’ll go to committee to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by Councillor Turner. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. With that, I’d like to go to committee.

Any comments, requests? Councillor Turner. Through you, Madam Chair, just with respect to Ms. Tasky’s request, perhaps to staff what might be involved with that.

I know fairly routinely when the heritage assets are removed, there sometimes is a request to do the chronicling and documentation of those buildings to some degree. What would be involved in us seeking to do something similar here? Thank you, can go to staff. Thank you through the chair.

Typically, photographic documentation may be requested as a part of terms or conditions for a demolition request. In terms of effort, the scope kind of varies depending on the level of documentation that’s required. So in some cases, that can include measure drawings, things like that, photographic documentation. From a current standpoint, staff documented the exterior elevations of all of the buildings that are the subject of this demolition request as a part of a field visit.

I believe access to the interior of the buildings may be a bit challenging due to their current conditions. And I think some ongoing abatement procedures right now, in general, it just requires a kind of a thorough photographic documentation space. Councillor Turner. Madam Chair, but given that, I think it would be reasonable and myself having worked in a number of these buildings in the past as well.

I know that the interiors of a number of these rooms and being able to chronicle it is an important component of Florence history. I think the demolition request is reasonable and it was certainly foreseen when this block was put up for redevelopment. So it doesn’t sound like an overly onerous task. It sounds like something that can be accomplished, rather with general ease, there might be some difficulties in accomplishing some components of it, but I don’t think it needs to be something that’s particularly taxing.

So if I might, then I might make that recommendation to be included with the staff recommendation. Councillor Turner, are you looking to add a D clause to that documenting and preserving the north and south pavilions, as well as the middle building to be added to the recommendation? So there is a added on the floor here. Just take a moment to see if staff can get something up for us.

Chair, I have a question while that’s being considered. Yes, please proceed. Thank you. I know Councillor Turner doesn’t have a seconder yet, but I’d like to get a sense of this issue of how onerous it is.

I’m respectful and mindful of the work that staff have already done on this, but I’m also mindful that considerable expense on the applicant’s part has already gone through. If this is to go through, can I get some sense of what the additional cost potential would be and also what the potential of benefit and understanding the work that staff have already done on this, so that I can help me at least determine whether or not this has the intrinsic value that’s been suggested potentially is there. And I would assume that is for Mr. Gregor, that question around the cost if we were going to proceed?

Probably and I would probably ask the second part of that to relative to the staff commitment that’s already been made to chronicle this. Again, easy to ask, but you know, again, I’m trying to be sensitive to the financial impacts of this as well with the greatest respect. Yeah, thank you for that. And just for the public’s awareness here, we do have a de-closits on the floor and it beats that civic administration be requested to photographically document and chronicle the north and south pavilion and the connecting building.

And with that, I’ll go to staff to answer the mayor’s question. Thank you very much. Through the chair, the cost I would suggest is a relatively modest cost. I don’t know if I would have a specific dollar figure or anything like that.

Generally, I think photographic documentation would usually be carried out through an owner’s consultant or a heritage consultant that’s used to photographing and documenting researching heritage properties. In terms of the benefit, it would ultimately be a photographic documentation to create a permanent photographic record, kind of an archival quality data that’s filed for the property. In terms of cost too, maybe I’ll also just refer to the applicant if then a colleague may wish to comment as well. Thank you through the chair.

In terms of the feasibility of entering the north pavilion building, I would have to defer or at least go back to internally with our staff just to confirm the status of the abatement and demolition, or rather not demolition, but the abatement that’s actually occurring there right now. Some parts of the building may not be accessible anymore. I really have to confirm that. So at face value, it doesn’t seem like it would be a massive undertaking, but it’s just challenging to really evaluate one, what aspects of the building aren’t really accessible anymore, and two, is it even safe to do so?

So that would be my comments for now. So chairs, as a follow up please, and that is this. I heard you say chair that this would be a cost borne by the civic administration, not the applicant, is that correct? That’s what I heard you say chair and that’s what I thought I heard you say, you’ll clarify that.

I didn’t say that, your question was around the cost that would be incurred. I do see Councillor Turner’s hand up there, but are you asking for further clarification to what you’ve already heard from staff? Yes, and I’m sure Councillor Turner wants to add a comment here. That’s what I thought are they so forgive me if I misheard or misunderstood that.

But if this is now going to be the applicant’s cost, if we had, when we say or I hear it said not so much or that it’s modest or whatever that would, I think that, again, we’re putting this cost on the applicant, I’d like to get a beyond what’s already been done. So I’d love to get a sense of what the implications of that are in terms of real dollars. Thank you, Councillor Turner first. Madam Chair, if I’m a Chair, I think we need to revise the wording on the motion, it currently says the civic administration be requested to photographically document which is where I think is going from here.

As Mr. Grego had identified as typically as a cost born by the applicant as part of the process. So I think the motion should probably read something to the degree that the applicant be requested to, rather than the civic administration be requested to, Mr. McCauley’s points, I think it’s reasonable to say to the degree possible, recognizing that there’s, there’s mitigation and abatement efforts going on in the North Pavilion and that some parts may not be accessible.

And to the mayor’s point, the current work that’s been done as Mr. Grego has identified has been done to the exterior of the building, not the interior. And so the interior is an important component to it. But further to that, I just wanted to provide those clarifications ‘cause it seemed to be that those were some of the sticking points.

Thank you. And I hear loud and clear that Councilor Turner is suggesting to the degree possible in coming up with the information. I am going to go to Mr. Barrett, I do see his hand up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilor Turner got it. I just wanted to confirm that the conditions that go with a demolition request are conditions that go to the applicant. So that the, any documentation for the documentation that the committee is seeking on this would be that the applicant’s responsibility and that it would be a requirement that would be part of the demolition approved.

Thanks for that clarification. So we do have to change the wording on the amendment that’s in front of us. And I know we’re still looking for a seconder as well. So do we have the wording up yet?

Chair, I know that we’re kind of doing this reverse order. Normally we often discuss with the seconder already in place. But can I ask a question through you, please, to the applicant? Yes.

Is it a technical question? Well, if it is— To the amendment? Well, it certainly relates to the amendment. And I appreciate the clarification that it is not civic administration.

But this is now what I find, see, I’m very mindful about the potential of changing conditions, which is certainly our right to do that. But to do that, and I’d like to get a sense through you based on the amendment, if the applicant has any comments on that amendment. Through the chair. So first off, we’ve got existing contractors on site right now completing the abatement.

And the timing right now is going to work quite well in terms of starting the demolition with the abatement. And we purposely did that when we filed. So the council approval and hopefully staff sign up on the demolition permit would line up as when the demolition was to occur. So obviously, if there’s further delays on that, there’s going to be costs of holding our contractors up.

Who knows for how long? Like I said, documenting the property may not be a significant effort. But you’d think at least a few weeks to get your heritage consultants on site to scour the buildings, take photos, document them, put them into a report, send them to staff, and then get that approval. So I can’t put a dollar figure on it, but it’s not insignificant.

We’d be holding off our contractors. We’d be spending more money on our heritage consultants to go and document the buildings when it’s already been confirmed that these buildings do not have any significant heritage value. And that’s been a very long yearly, multiple year process to confirm this. So it’s all I can appreciate the public’s comments at the same time.

This has been a long drawn out process and we’re at this point in the process for a reason. So Chair, I appreciate that. I’ll save my comments then as you look for Council Committee input on it, but I appreciate the applicant’s comments as well. That’s helpful to me as well, thanks.

Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was actually going to ask through you to the applicant or to our staff about what this would mean timeline wise, but that’s been answered.

So with appreciation to what that would mean for timelines, I’ll reserve further comment on this until we get into the discussion on it. So that my technical questions been answered. Hey, any other questions, comments? I know that there is a motion.

Councillor Turner, did you have your hand up there? Sorry, I was just moving screens here, my apologies. I would like to move a second, the motion, and I appreciate what the applicant has said about the timing. I’m a little unsure of how we confirm or can we firm up the amendment to…

I got the sense from the public that any kind of documentation of photography would be sufficient in documenting it. I’m not sure if they’re looking at something that needs to be sort of done in a very formal way, but it could be wrong, but I do think it’s important that these photographs be documented. So I am, I’ll be supporting the motion in front of us or the amendment to the motion. Would it be appropriate?

I think we’ve closed a public participation meeting and I would encourage the public to bring their comments. This will be going to Council too. So with that, I’ll go to Councilor Turner. Thanks, just really quickly.

It’s one last point in passing. These are fairly routine requests during the demolition process. So this isn’t out of the ordinary. It’s not known or as request.

It’s not an exorbitant in terms of cost request. This is just a routine one. I think what Ms. Tasky asks is fairly reasonable and I hope you’ll support it as well.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I will comment now on the amendment and while I appreciate Councilor Turner’s comments, I won’t be supporting it. These buildings have been vacant and unused for a while.

There’s been plenty of opportunity for requests like this to come forward. And it’s actually frustrating to me to have always these requests come forward at a time like this when contractors are lined up, when work is being prepared. And I’ll be frank, I want to see shovels in the ground on this property sooner than later. This is an area that’s not in my ward, but adjacent to it.

There’s lots of housing to be done across the city, but the development in this area is going to add quite a few housing units to our inventory across the city of what’s available. And we’ve heard from our heritage folks that there’s not a heritage value to these properties. So I’m not prepared to hold up projects weeks and weeks and more costs to the applicant for some photographic documentation. Whatever level of that might be, and I do appreciate, by the way, I want to say I do appreciate Councilor Turner’s willingness to amend the language a little bit in terms of what can be reasonably done because I was very concerned about the issues of safety on the site.

So I do appreciate his willingness to move there, but I can’t justify delaying a project for an unknown number of weeks and holding up contractors, which frankly are in demand across the province right now. And the old adage is that the time is money, and I’m mindful of the fact that in the housing world, that’s a very real thing. I know that there are photographic documentations back in the London room at the library of some of the history of the psychiatric hospital. I don’t think that it can be justified that we’ve got to go back and photograph again, buildings that are long since vacant and no longer in good repair to do this.

So I won’t be supporting the amendment. I will be supporting the original staff recommendation. Madam Chair, a point of order and/or privilege. Yes, go ahead.

No, thanks. Councilor Lewis had mentioned some frustration with the timing of the request from the public. This is the first public participation meeting on this item. It is exactly the time that such a request would come forward in statements like that to have the effect of chilling public participation.

And I’d ask that he consider not making such statements in the future. Councilor Lewis. Thank you. I appreciate the Councilor’s comments and the public’s always welcome to weigh in.

I’m not gonna engage in cross debate through you, Madam Chair, with Councilor Turner on this. But those who are involved in heritage preservation initiatives in our city tend to, while they have an opportunity, they know where the heritage values are in the city. There’s lots of opportunity to bring those forward to get properties put on the registry, do those various things. So while I appreciate the sentiment behind Councilor Turner’s comments, I think that there is a need for those in the heritage community to be more proactive rather than waiting until a demolition application comes forward before starting to cite heritage value, particularly when our staff recommends, comes back and says there isn’t a heritage value there.

So I take in genuine good will from Councilor Turner what he’s saying. And it’s not my intent to stifle public participation in that way. So I do appreciate that. Mr.

Mayor. Thanks very much, Chair. I will not be supporting the amendment. I think Councilor Lewis articulated better than I might, the reasons why not, but I want to put that on record that I mean, I’ll not be supporting this.

Any other comments, questions? We do have an amendment that we can proceed to vote. Chair, I’ll vote no. Closing the vote, the motion loses two to three.

Looking to committee. Madam Mayor. Chair, I’ll put forward the staff recommendation. And we need a seconder, Councillor Lewis.

Any further questions, comments? And proceed to vote. I’ll vote yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion carries.

Moving on now to the next public participation meeting, which is 3.6. And this is a application at 1503 zoning application. I’m looking to committee to open up the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Hill, your seconded by, Councillor Lewis.

Yes, Chair. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Good stuff. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is Anousha again for 1503 Hyde Park Road. The property is located on the east side of Hyde Park Road and south of Gainesboro Road and Hyde Park intersection. The surrounding properties primarily consists of three storey cluster townhouses to the east, a retail store to the south, and undeveloped commercial land to the north and single detached residential homes to the east and west side of Hyde Park Road. The applicants are proposing to rezone the lands from the existing holding BDC zone to a holding BDC special provision zone to permit the proposed 130 unit eight storey mixed use apartment building that will contain 782 square meters of commercial gross floor area, 123 onsite surface parking spaces and 41 underground parking spaces.

Vehicular access is currently being proposed off of Coronation Drive by a rear access lane, which is intended to line up with the existing rear service lane planned for the future redevelopment to the north. It must also be noted that a secondary shared right in and right out vehicular access is proposed from Hyde Park Road via the existing access off of the adjacent retail property to the south. The total proposed density for this site will be 150 units per hectare and special provisions are requested in regard to rear and side yard depth, front yard setbacks, reduced parking, height, density, and ground floor facade width. I just want to know that after extensive communication and collaboration with the applicants in various internal departments, the city is recommending approval of the application on the basis that we believe it would provide appropriate development of an otherwise underutilized site and that the proposed intensity in a height is considered suitable given its location within the Hyde Park Village, which is identified through the official plan as an area targeted for mixed use development and compact residential intensification.

The proposed mixed use building will also take advantage of the surrounding infrastructure and will be transit supportive as it is located along the high order street and nearby to an active intersection. Lastly, staff also believe the proposed building provides a desirable transition in building height and contributes to a mix of housing types for the city while providing choice and diversity in terms of housing options for current and future residents. Thank you very much for such a well said presentation. I know this is your second one here this evening and I just want to compliment you on your presentation given that we can just hear you.

And with that, I’ll go to committee for any technical questions. Dean Nunn, I’d like to go to the applicant or the consultant’s applicant. Mr. Davis, please proceed.

If you can, you have up to five minutes and welcome. Thank you, Chair Hopkins and good afternoon to you and members of committee. My name is Mike Davis. I’m a partner with Civic Planning and Design here in London here today representing our client, business network associates who are the owner and developer of this project at 1503 Hyde Park Road.

Just along with me today, I want to give a shout out. I have Brigail Patel who’s representing the ownership group. I also have Paul Wright from ACI Wright Architects in Toronto who’s been a key member of the project team and has brought to life the conceptual design for this new mixed use project. Today’s a big milestone for sure for what we intend to be a really positive contribution to the emerging main street, which was a vision for this stretch of Hyde Park Road dating back to the Hyde Park community planning process all the way back in 2000.

Fully in agreement with the recommendation report from planning staff. I know specifically we want to thank Miss Singh, Kudos to her, she’s taken on this file and it’s later stages. This spring and truly has worked to move this fall forward with, I think, a lot of energy and enthusiasm. Again, Kudos to her.

This is a project that we’ve been working on for the better part of the last 16 months. In terms of the design, what we’ve kind of co-created with the ownership group and Mr. Wright’s office is the eight story mixed use concept before you. The building includes 130 new residential units on its upper stories.

Those will be a mix of one and two bedroom units. There’s a significant commercial component on the ground floor of this building. In fact, over 8,000 square feet of new commercial space along the Hyde Park Road Main Street opportunities for a mix of restaurant, retail, personal service types uses. I think just to add on top of that, there’s some interesting public benefits that are gonna be realized through this project.

So we have the further northward extension of the rear lane. That’s gonna open up options for connectivity for the broader neighborhood. And then secondly, the completion of a pedestrian pathway network East West through this site, linking existing residents to the East, to Hyde Park Road and the commercial amenities that this project will bring. Just to bring you into our thinking on this project, we made a few very conscious decisions about the design moves here.

One was to limit the height of the building to eight stories where in fact, the applicable Main Street commercial corridor policies of the official plan, the 89 official plan would actually open the door for taller heights at this location, actually more consistent with the existing buildings to the East, the placement and shape of the building. So it’s been oriented very close to Hyde Park Road. We formed a linear building along Hyde Park Road so that this will produce a continuous active edge along Hyde Park Road, all of the parking behind the building or underground. It’s a authentic Main Street style design approach here.

We’ve also incorporated a series of step backs in the building. So as the building gets taller, it steps back to further soften the appearance of the building, break it down so it doesn’t feel imposing. We did prepare a quick fact sheet and attach that to the agenda. I think it summarizes some of the key points of our community engagement program, which were important to highlight.

We started that conversation with the community back in May of 2021. In fact, well before this application was submitted, the first thing we did was establish a project website. That was our home base for sharing information with stakeholders. At the outset, we circulated information postcards through 94 surrounding homes and businesses.

We did that on two occasions. We hosted two community meetings and we know that over the course of our engagement program, we had 318 unique viewers visit our project website. So that tells us that this project’s been seen by a large proportion of those in the area. That’s a substantial reach for an engagement program on a planning application.

I think also important to highlight and missing touched on this. We worked very closely with planning staff, particularly over the last six months to consider the feedback of all the stakeholders to make changes to some elements of the design of the project and ultimately bring this forward in unison with staff. So those are just some of the key points of the project and the process that we wanted to bring to your attention. I know the whole development team is very excited about this milestone this evening and about moving forward with next steps on this project.

Appreciate your time and consideration. And of course, available to answer any questions. Thank you very much and thank you for being just on time as well. I’d like to move on now to the public.

If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the recommendation before us, please come forward. If I may, Madam Chair, I’m John Lawson. Yes, if you can, thank you for being here. You can state your address if you wish and you have to five minutes.

Thank you. So 70 disincrescent on a resident on disincrescent, immediately west of the proposed development. Speaking on behalf of and of my neighbors, that’s directly a butt onto Hyde Park Road on the west side. As stated, we are very supportive of the London plan and the mainstream emphasis of the plan as well as the development itself.

The urban design elements that have gone into and spoken so well to Pacific. We do have an ongoing concern though regarding the height of the proposal. We owe better properties with current zoning based on the 12 meter height that’s in the zone that’s asked to be doubled right now or more than doubled to accommodate 27 meters in height or for the eight stories. We were involved in a consultation with the London plan which called for two to four stories.

Concerns have been expressed to the development component from onset and although they work with city staff to address the number of the urban design elements very well, as you can see by the request, they’re asking for the height exemption and a number of other exemptions in order to facilitate the eight stories along the way. And we just don’t feel that’s in the proper context for the area with the 12 story buildings set back from the roadway then having a three story townhouse then back up to eight stories high with a three story building to the south and a further two to four story buildings to the north. We were looking at some of the other developments in the area at the southwest corner of Hyde Park in South Garage and at 1076 Gainesboro where both those proponents increased density but also increased the footprint to minimize the height. That’s one of the suggestions that we made on this application here is trying to either increase the footprint to double down on the current area and get down to four stories or bonusing to six as a allow for the London plan or go to an L-shape such as the development of the southwest corner.

So we would ask that this be deferred so that we have an opportunity to work with the development component city staff to confirm that an expanded footprint or revised footprint would lower the height of the building in order to minimize its impact in context of the area itself as well as on Canterbury States and just in Crescent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hassan.

And I’d like to ask the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this application, come forward. I see and hear none. So with that, I’ll go to committee to close the public participation meeting.

Councilor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Chair of the yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And I’d like to go to committee with any question comments.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the opportunity to drive by this site on Friday night. I was actually on my way to visit the deputy mayor and his ward and made the time to take an alternate route so I could drive by.

And in reviewing the planning documents that we received, I recognize that there are some folks in the neighborhood who might not like it, but I think that this is a reasonable fit. As staff pointed out, it is recommended because it’s consistent with the provincial policy statement, but also that it conforms with the enforced policies of the London plan when this came forward and it conforms to the policies of the 1989 official plan, which is still in play in regard to this application. So it is not just the London plan, but also the 1989 official plan that we have to consider in this. So I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation.

Looking for a seconder or comments, Mr. Mayor. I think Chair, I’m happy to second that. And with that, but a motion on the floor.

Councillor Turner. Thanks Madam Chair. I’m supportive of the application. I’m kind of curious just a bit about the comments and in general about the reconciliation between the 1989 official plan and the London plan, which kind of alludes to ultimately the London plan is supposed to be the more modern of the two, more reflective of the current conditions and direction of development in the city.

But the comments in the staff report identify that perhaps it’s the ‘89 official plan here that makes a bit more sense for the area. When I look at the area on a main street, six to eight stories seem appropriate. The commercial component at street level makes a lot of sense and it’s great to see Mr. Davis identified how much commercial and that’s wonderful as well.

He also identified that the ‘89 allowed for even more height than what might be desired at this location. So perhaps just to kind of focus my question, how I’m going forward, I guess we’ve got the London plan in force and effect now. Applications come forward under the new London plan as it is in force and effect. It kind of removes the ability to make such a statement that says, well, in the ‘89, it gives a bit more latitude here and we think it’s probably more appropriate.

How do we kind of square that whole and moving forward to say, okay, this is what the policy of the day is and be able to work within it. Well, I can go to staff on that one. I don’t know if Mr. Barrick will answer that or Mr.

Davis, maybe I’ll go to Mr. Barrick. To you Madam Chair, maybe I’ll give it a first cut just on a very high level and then if one of the other staff want to jump in. In this instance, and this is really a great example where both policy regimes were in play.

I think you also, and again, to this specific, you also have to consider the fact that the most family how density residential designation was also in play here, which would provide for the residential development up to 150 meters. And as members of the committee will recall, there were no height limits identified in the ‘89 plan they spoke to densities. Those densities at the 150 units per hectare, seeing what that traditional form of suburban high rise development was, it would be 10 to 12 stories is what that would result in residential buildings. The London plan certainly speaks to a different height and a lesser height than what is being recommended here.

But again, I think you have to think about that within the context of the London plan policies and the place type policies. The main street, a place type that we’re speaking to is applied in, I would suggest you perhaps a few more in the London plan than it would have been in the ‘89 plan because of the city that it is that we’re trying to create. And for that reason, there was perhaps a little bit of moderation or a little bit of considerations to what would be the appropriate heights given the extent of where that place type may apply. I’m sure that members of the planning committee have recall us using the peanut butter argument when we talk about there’s only so much development to spread around.

And so in looking to try to provide for the opportunities for intensification and redevelopment throughout the city and to promote the inward and upward growth by providing for opportunities for higher intensity along the primary transportation corridors, that sort of came into play in putting what some of these numbers would be through the maximum caps. So that’s, I guess, the broad broad brush policy. Certainly as we go forward, it will be the London plan policy and we won’t be in this conundrum where we’ll have to say, well, what was really being contemplated under one plan and how do we make this work under the London plan? In this instance, again, the intent of both the designation and the place type and the ‘89 plan and the London plan were about mixed use development, about intensive mixed use development and about focusing that mixed use development on the major transportation corridors.

And that’s what this application brings forward. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. I’ll go back to Councillor Turner.

Thanks, Madam Chair and thank you, Mr. Barrett. Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up, right? The main street place types are really meant to be at a pedestrian scale.

They’re meant to have that housing and commercial mix together to make a very walkable community. One of the challenges with Hyde Park is it’s, as a road is it’s such a high order range, so much traffic, so much speed. The ability to kind of bring that down speaks to scale and to get that feeling of community and neighborhood again, speaks to scale. Two stories plus minus, I don’t think it’s kind of a live or die kind of thing, right?

I think the elements of this overall are strong. I think they incorporate underground parking. And like I said before, the street level commercial, the trade off for spreading out the density means that you’re actually taking up more land, which is not preferable. We want to be able to use less land and more efficiently.

So it makes sense here, but I think we’re kind of at that upper limit of what is reasonable. It’s going to be hard when the next application is come forward under the new regime under London planned, that they’re going to be capped at six, and then they’re going to be looking next door and saying, “Hey, here’s eight.” And how do we make a logical argument to say defend at six? So I’m supportive. I’ll certainly vote in favor of the application here.

I raise it more as a bit more of a contemplative question that we need to think about as we see more applications in the future. I’m really excited to see what Hyde Park is becoming. I think it’s starting to evolve. There just needs to be some consistency applied to it so that it has some cohesive and uniform vision for as it evolves and it threads together well.

So let’s see how it goes, but I think this one’s worth the support. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Any other questions, comments from committee members? I see none if the committee will allow me just to speak from the chair as well.

I too am generally supportive of this application. I appreciate the concerns from the community though. I think when we see the height and when we try to understand how different policies that can become quite confusing and looking forward to the day when we do not have to deal with the two plans, I think it’s going to help all of us understand exactly what plan is in place, like the London plan that will dictate how we develop. But when this is on a major arterial road where the height, the intensity should really happen and I appreciate the concerns that we hear quite often from the public about the height.

But I want to also acknowledge the changes that have been made to this application have been a number of amendments. So I appreciate the work that the applicant has done on this one trying to work along with staff. And I hope continue to work and have this building fit into the community as well. So with that, we can proceed to vote.

Chair, I’ll vote yes. Thank you. Councillor Hilliard. - I’m reading.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, and we are moving on to 3.7, which is the public participation meeting for 850 Highbury Avenue North. This is the public participation meeting commend the official plan amendment for the former London psychiatric hospital lands and to adopt the secondary plan. So looking for a motion to open up the public participation meeting, Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Turner.

Oh, yes, Chair. Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. With that, I would like to go to staff for a presentation.

Hello, Chair. This is a Michael Clark planner with the city for this file. So these lands are, as you guys are aware, the former London psychiatric hospital located at the corner of Highbury and Oxford. The total area is approximately 58 hectares just over that.

And the proposal is to amend the secondary plan that applies to these lands. The second plan also applies to additional lands and working with staff, we’re also implementing housekeeping amendments that were done, similar to amendments that were done to the other secondary plans recently by council. And we have worked with the applicant in conjunction with their specific amendments to do the housekeeping amendment at the same time. The proposed amendment would increase the amount of density that can happen on these lands, bringing more and keeping with the transit village place type in the London plan.

On page 45 of the added agenda, you can see the changes in the land use designations that are considered in the amendments to the secondary plan. The applicant is supposing to remove the academic area designation as Fanshawe College is no longer interested in expanding their main campus here. They’ve, the applicants work with Fanshawe and they’ve expanded elsewhere, such as downtown. So the transit oriented corridor with the highest densities as opposed to extend all the way along Oxford Street and all the way down the frontage of Hibery with the exception of one heritage block.

They are, there’s other kind of minor changes to the layout of the open space. Some other key changes were originally were proposed to remove a connection to Spanish Street to the east. I’ll get back to that in a minute, but basically with working with the applicant, we’re gonna keep that connection in. In terms of the heights the, so the heights considered in the original secondary plan were implemented prior to the London plan being adopted.

And so the applicant is bringing, or the application is bringing the heights closer into alignment with the heights in the London plan. So for the transit village that would permit up to 22 stories with site specific zoning on those transit oriented corridor place types. And as well as they were looking at additional heights from some areas around the central heritage campus and a reduction in heights in other areas. So these, we’ve been working with the applicant for quite a while on these applications.

And so this was originally submitted last year. And then this, what you’re seeing in here is a revised amendment that was submitted in March of this year. And since then we’ve worked with the applicant, we had a couple of issues that were outstanding, including that removal of the Spanish connection, removal of some minimum density requirements in addition to low density residential uses in some areas, increases in the heights in some areas adjacent to kind of the village core and the close to the heritage campus as well as changes to the road network and alignment towards the central tree delay that runs north south to the property. So on page 488 of the other agenda, you can see the revised, the final revised development plan which the applicant has worked with us to craft.

This addresses the staff’s concerns regarding the revised amendment. It shows the Spanish connection. It maintains the central areas of the secondary plan as medium density uses and takes out a number of the single attached dwellings. Single touched lungs are now only considered adjacent to the low density residential areas to the east in the northeast corner of the plan.

And as well, the heights kind of peak now at Oxford and the Highbury with that taking up the sites because they’re zoning up to 22 stories and then decrease moderately kind of in line with the rapid transit corridor heights as you go further east and south down Oxford and Highbury. And so yeah, as I was mentioning, there’s a number of issues that we worked through with the applicant regarding the heights and densities all the way along the Highbury and in Oxford and so as you go south down Highbury group, for example, the heights will drop from a maximum possible of 22 down to 16 and then down to 12 at the village core which feeds the village core is rated adjacent to the central heritage campus. We wanna maintain more of a village feel there rather than high density 22 story buildings. We’re also, as this is a transit village and we’ll have, has the planned bus rapid transit.

We wanna make sure that we’re making efficient use of land and being consistent with the protected major transit station, protected major transit station area policies which have minimum density requirements. And so those minimum density requirements will be maintained. There’s some unique ones for certain areas of the plan but those minimum requirements will be maintained in the amendments. There’s also agreements to ensure that the heritage resources including the treat LA and the buildings are going to, Delm will be fronting towards the LA and the buildings and ensuring that those resources will be protected.

But there’s obviously to the east, there’s a active industrial area and so the applicant has undertaken a noise and vibration study which has identified a number of mitigation measures including using a single loaded residential building which means on one side you’d have like non habitable spaces that act as a noise wall to protect the rest of the development as well as noise burns and some other mitigation measures. Those kind of details will be addressed through further study and implemented through zoning, draft line conditions and some other tools that the city has available to them. And the Spanish street connection will be maintained in their interim, it’ll be used to provide construction access to the storm water pond that’s planned in the southeast corner. And yeah, further study will be needed to determine the final densities and stuff that can be supported with new fill existing and planned infrastructure.

But that, like I said, will be determined through the future amendments to the zoning and draft line of subdivision applications. The other unique thing about this was we were doing the housekeeping minerals to the entire plan. And so we’ve done these both at the same time. And so this is similar to what council did for the other secondary plans.

We’ve replaced references to the 1989 official plan and its designations and street classifications with the same things that are the terminology of this use in the London plan. And any lands that were in the secondary plan, but not on this property, they’ve been moved into their own designations that ensure that they’re not impacted by these developments until applications come forward specific to those lands. At the end of the presentation, you can see some of the schedules that staff are recommending be adopted for the secondary plan, which show the transit corridor, transit orangid corridor extended along Oxford and Highbury with various policy areas that show the graduation and height that will be considered and with the updated road network. I will leave that there, but I’m available to answer questions if committee has.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. There’s a lot to unpack.

That’s for sure any technical questions from committee. I see none if the committee will allow me. I do have a quick technical question to staff. And that’s around, I guess, the affordable housing part.

And just, if you can remind me again, where we are with affordable housing units, I would think this would be a great place for affordable housing units, given it’s on a transit corridor. But what tools are available to us now, given that we’ve got to see some changes in what we can and can’t do when it comes to housing, affordable housing in particular? Do you, Madam Chair, so the bonus policies are no longer, it can be applied. So we’ve changed those policies to just require site-specific zoning amendments, but these lands are also within, Council doesn’t need these lands as a protected major transit station area, same with all the transit villages and the rapid transit corridors.

And the city is undertaking a review of inclusionary zoning, which the province allows us to apply to these lands. So that’s one tool, for example, that the city could use. But we’re in a bit of a limbo before then. I don’t know if other staff can add more in terms of how that will be addressed, but.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. For that reminder and thank you for being here with us this evening. I know you are a new dad and congratulations.

So moving on to the applicant. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of committee, staff and members of the public in attendance tonight. My name is Casey Cole-Chickie. I’m a senior planner with Salink Green MLMited, representing Old Oak Properties for this official plan amendment.

I am joined by Ben McCauley, who’s been meeting earlier tonight, representing Old Oak as well. And he and I are both on hand to answer any questions. We have reviewed Michael’s report. We are in agreement with its recommendation for approval.

To say we’ve been working with staff for prolonged period of time, it’s a bit of an understatement. Old Oak purchases property back in 2019. And we almost immediately began preliminary conversations with staff at that time. So this definitely has been in the pipeline for a significant amount of time.

And I just want to extend a huge thanks to staff, just for their work over the last number of years on this project, countless meetings. I mean, if I was to name everybody, it’s all the rival, an Oscar acceptance speech, probably. We’ve met with everybody, including the heritage team, engineering teams, planning staff, urban design, the BRT team with regards to this proposed development. It’s unlike anything that I’ve had the opportunity to work on in my career.

We are essentially proposing to construct a small town within the city. We are surrounded by development. Existo development on all sides. It’s, this is one of those rare opportunities that you get this scale of development surrounded by existing built form.

So I just want to just take the time to acknowledge and appreciate the time and the effort that has been put in by city staff from all departments on the proposed application. There are patients to the details and working with us through the process has been greatly appreciated. So on that, I’ll leave it there. And as I said, Ben and I are on hand to address any questions from committee members.

This is just the first hurdle of this development. We do look forward to continuing the great work with staff through the next stages of the zoning bylaw amendment and the draft plan to subdivision. And we hope to see you in the near future with those applications. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kolchowski. Moving on to the public. There’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments on the recommendation to the secondary plan at London’s psychiatric hospital.

Hello again, my name is Kevin Eby. I obviously spoke at the wrong one last time. Mr. Eby, yeah, thank you for coming forward.

I know we had two items concerning these lands. So welcome, you have up to five minutes. Thank you. And when I came in, I came into the introduction, originally to the introduction of the gentleman from Old Oak and you asked for comments and I thought you were on this application.

Anyway, I just, I am again representing GDA investment sink. They own the property at $5.35 and $5.39 commercial crescent. They operate an industry out of there. Mr.

Clark has spoken to a lot of the issues around noise and the need for attenuation. Let me just be brief and say, you know, we’ve provided comments to staff who are awaiting a response back on how to actually implement those conditions. We have no objection to the proposed development subject to properly securing the noise requirements. And the, the only thing I would note is the latest changes to the draft plan were not assessed as part of the noise study.

There was a change from a number of single detach units and multiple blocks and we understand that staff is going to be requesting an update to the noise study prior to the approval to plan a subdivision and zone change and we support that. And I would just echo a game where we have no objection to this moving forward and it’s our intent to work cooperatively with staff and the applicant as it goes through the other phases. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Ebe. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application, I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application, you see and hear no one. So with that, I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting.

Moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by the mayor. Hello, yes, Chair. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

To committee questions, comments, motion. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna move the staff recommendation.

I cannot, to colleagues, express how supportive and excited I am to see things moving here at the old psychiatric hospital lands. When all is said and done, this is really one of those game changer moments for East London. It’s not very often that a parcel of land this size becomes available in a large urban city like London. And the opportunity for the revitalization, both in terms of residential occupancy and growth in the East and the commercial opportunities as well.

And I think that the applicant has approached it in a very thoughtful way. There’s components of heritage preservation in there. There’s open space in there. There’s connectivity for active transportation.

It connects with our transit village goals and we’ll connect some high density residential to the East London Link Rapid Transit route. So in every way, shape and form, this is a very, very positive plan and that we’re at this phase where we’ve dealt with a demolition request. We’re dealing with these amendments to the secondary plan. We’re finally seeing the wheels gain traction and moving forward.

And I’m just, I’m thrilled to see that. And hopefully colleagues will be supportive of moving this forward alongside me. Thank you. I’d like to go to the mayor.

Thanks very much. I’ll second the motion. And as I do, I’d also like to acknowledge the applicant and representative of the applicant in terms of the tone that was taken with respect to working with the city. I think that’s very positive.

And I think that’s very helpful when I just want to say that I appreciate it as well. Thank you. Councilor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair.

And I share Mr. Kolceki’s excitement on this. This is and Councilor Lewis as well. I think these are rare opportunities that come across as we move through the building of our city.

And this is an amazing example of trans-oriented development. This is what rapid transit was meant to do, was to be able to support this kind of development within the city, especially on previously used and adaptive reuse sites, also to allow for specific places where intensification really can occur. And it’s quite appropriate along the Oxford and hybrid corridors to have those heights of 22 stories. This makes a lot of sense.

It, I’m glad that discussion occurred about minimum densities. I think those are important discussions for us to have a lot more of that was supposed to happen initially in the North Talbot area plan, but in the Southwest area plan, sorry, Talbot village and the Southwest area plan. And they were supposed to be more entrenched in the London plan. They didn’t come out so much in the London plan in terms of minimum densities, but they did in certain areas as we had the place types.

Also, it goes a long way to recognize the heritage assets within the plan. The mixed densities, as I mentioned before, is really key rather than having a kind of a monolithic community, this allows for quite a mix. It’s accessible, it’s a pedestrian scale. And I’m curious, however, the one component of this that’s kind of left out and we don’t really talk about it too much is the areas to the Southwest of it, which I think is the military lands.

That’s not on this plan itself. It is in a couple of the diagrams in here as we go a little bit further on. Is there any impact to that through these housekeeping amendments or those that just kind of generally will watch them and wait till they’re obtained or something along those lines? I think that’s a question over to Steph.

Through the chair, Councillor. So the military lands, they’ve been moved, they’re currently in what’s called, I think, residential, the South residential policy area too, I believe it is, and so they’ve been moved into their own residential policy area with essentially the existing policies aside from we’ve done the housekeeping changes to those policies, so they still have the same permitted uses, densities, and so on. And those, any reconsideration of the uses and densities that have to come through a development application for those lands, they’re, so yeah, we’ve essentially, they’re not, they’re, we’ve done the housekeeping amendments to those lands, but they haven’t been impacted by the changes and uses and heights and so on that are considered for the rest of the plan. Same with the lands south of the train tracks.

And to correct me if I’m wrong then, this is kind of draft plan for the areas north of the tracks, and we’re not quite at draft plan stage for the areas south. Yes, yeah, they’ve submitted draft plan for the lands that you see on the earlier schedules like aside from the military lands and lands south of the tracks, they’ve submitted lands for just the main parcel, the draft plan, sorry. And through the circulation for this official plan, staff have identified a number of outstanding studies and updates to studies that they want done before we bring forward the draft plan, and so that will come back to council sometime in the future. Great, thank you.

I’m very supportive of the amendments as put forward here, very supportive of the development in general. I’m really looking forward to seeing how this one evolves as well. And I think it’ll be a marquee kind of demonstration of how London can do infill and intensification within the city and do it on this kind of a scale. So I’m really looking forward to it and certainly has my support.

Thank you. Any other comments from committee? May you allows me just to make a few quick comments, really appreciate this application coming forward. This is exciting, a development in not only in our city, but in particular out in the East and there, there’s so much growth and development happening, and this is really something that we can all get excited about.

Obviously, there’s still a lot more work to be done as this application moves forward, but really supportive of the different types of density and obviously this is a transit village and this is something that is going to be quite an exciting area with not only Fanshawe down the road, but just lots of things going on in this development. I really do appreciate the work at the consultant for the applicant as well as staff working together. And I could just tell in their excitement of this plan, it is like building this little town. I think someone mentioned within our city.

So I really would encourage thoughtful development around our heritage asset. It’s important as well as the opportunities of sort of, it’s such an important corner, and I just from a personal note, I think this corner will always have a soccer goalpost and it’s somewhere for me as I drive by it because of the history of the use of these lands in the meantime, but exciting times, I think for us as city as we develop this great area. So thank you. And with that, we’ve got a motion on the floor if we can proceed to vote.

Thanks, Travel, yes. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And with that, we have come to an end of our public participation meetings. We’ll move on to number four, items for direction.

I see none, number five. We have a deferred matters additional business. We have an added, which is the first report of the community advisory committee on planning. I’m looking to committee to receive and approve.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Assuming we’re calling the vote, I’ll vote yes, Chair. Thank you. And then moving on to the confidential, I will go to the clerk.

Thank you through the chair. We are moving in camera for the purpose of considering a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officer of an emplace of the corporation. The subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal. And for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the corporation.

With that, we’ll have a few minutes to move in. Oh, sorry, Anita, a mover to go in camera. Mr. Mayor, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

And with that— - Oh, yes, Chair. We need a vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And just do new things around.

Thank you. I’d like to go to Councillor Lewis to report progress. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’m pleased to report that progress was made on the item for which we went in camera.

Thank you. And just before we adjourn, I would like to go to Mayor Holder. Thanks very much, Chair. This meeting opened up with Mr.

Barrett making some comments with regard to the London plan and the work that was done. And that’s been dealt with all of that, all of the issues related to our development community and the city on behalf of our community were accomplished. I don’t want it just left there. I want to give a great shout out to Ms.

Anderson for her constant work there and her team to the planning department and their team. This has been, in my view, a whole of municipal government approach to this in great cooperation and back and forth with our development community and to come to the right resolve. And I just want to give a great shout out on behalf of Council. I think this is so significant.

And I just appreciate the work that’s been done by all of them to get us to this point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for those comments.

And with that, I am looking for a tournament. Councilor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier. And with that, we can do a hand vote here. All those in favor?

Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Everyone, good night.

Good night.