July 25, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM, with Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair, Councillors S. Lewis, S. Lehman and Turner present and all other members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That Items 2.1 to 2.7, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2022-06-16 ECAC Report - For July 25 PEC

2022-07-21 ECAC Report - Full

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st and 2nd Reports of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee:

a)  the Wetlands in London, Ontario:  Lessons Learned from 905 Sarnia Road Wetland and Recommendations for the future - Draft 2 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for review;

b)  the revised Working Group comments relating to the property located at 307 Sunningdale Road East BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration;

c)  the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 4452 Wellington Road South BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

d)  clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 6.1 and 6.2 of the 1st Report and clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1 to 5.5, inclusive, of the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

2.1.a   (ADDED) 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2022-07-21 ECAC Report - Full(1)

2.2   3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2022-07-13 CACP Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on July 13, 2022:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Application, dated June 15, 2022, from M. Johnson, Senior Planner, with respect to a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, related to the property located at 1156 Dundas Street:

i)    the above-noted Notice BE RECEIVED; and,

ii)    the attached communication, from D. Devine, with respect to affordable housing matters related to new developments, BE FORWARDED to the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration with dealing with the Application; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3 to 3.5, inclusive, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.7, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A02)

Motion Passed

2.3   Heritage Alteration Permit Application - Elizabeth Street Infrastructure Renewal Project in the Old East Heritage Conservation District

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - Elizabeth Street Infrastructure Renewal (HAP22-038)

Moved by S. Lehman

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 for the Elizabeth Street alterations, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.4   Request for Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 514 Pall Mall Street 

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - Designation 514 Pall Mall Street

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the request for designation of the property at 514 Pall Mall Street:

a) Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report; and,

b) should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 514 Pall Mall Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.5   Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 45 Bruce Street, Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District

2022-07-25 PEC - Report - 45 Bruce Street HAP Application

Moved by S. Lehman

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 remove the brick chimney on the heritage designated property located at 45 Bruce Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.6   1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road - Exemption from Part-Lot Control (P-9488)

2022-07-25 PEC - Staff Report - 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road (P-9488)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Craig Linton (Norquay Developments), for lands located at 1345 Cranbrook Road and 1005 Longworth Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to exempt Blocks 28 & 29, Plan 33M-657 from the Part-Lot Control provisions of Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not exceeding three (3) years.   (2022-D25)

Motion Passed

2.7   Building Division Monthly Report - May 2022

2022-07-25 Staff Report - May 2022 Building Division Monthly Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

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

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road (39CD-22501)

2022-07-25 PEC - Report - 414 and 418 Old Wonderland (39CD-22503)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Four Fourteen Inc., relating to the property located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium by Four Fourteen inc., relating to lands located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval by Four Fourteen inc., relating to lands located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road;

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:

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, which directs new development to designated growth areas and areas adjacent to existing development; and,

  •    the proposed Vacant Land Condominium conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including, but not limited to, Our Tools, Key Directions and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.2   254 Hill Street - Demolition Request for a Heritage Listed Property

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - 254 Hill Street - Complete

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by E. Holder

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the built resources on the heritage listed property located at 254 Hill Street:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the built resources on the property;

b)    the property at 254 Hill Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, and,

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to salvage the buff brick during demolition for potential re-use in the current development proposal on the property or heritage conservation projects elsewhere in the City;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.3   432 Grey Street - Request to Remove the Fugitive Slave Chapel from a Heritage Designated Property 

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - 432 Grey Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking consent to remove the Fugitive Slave Chapel building from the heritage designated property located at 432 Grey Street and to relocate the building to the Fanshawe Pioneer Village, at 2609 Fanshawe Park Road East, BE APPROVED with the following term and condition:

a)    prior to the removal of the building, a Conservation Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development, articulating how the heritage attributes of the Fugitive Slave Chapel will be conserved following its removal from the property at 432 Grey Street;

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

  •    a communication dated July 18, 2022 from M. Temme, 66 Palmer Street;

  •    a communication dated July 18, 2022, from H. Bates Neary, 93 Regent Street;

  •    a communication dated July 19, 2022, from N. Steele;

  •    a communication dated July 18, 2022, from G. Hodder, Chair, Chapel Committee;

  •    a communication dated July 19, 2022, from C. and A. Cameron;

  •    a communication dated July 20, 2022, from J. Hunten, 66 Palmer Street;

  •    a communication dated July 19, 2022, from C. Cadogan, Chair, London Black History Coordinating Committee;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2022, from M.A. Hamilton, University of Western Ontario;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2022, from E.A. Quinn, Hartwick College;

  •    a communication dated July 21, 2022, from D. Brock, President, The London and Middlesex Historical Society;

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

  •    D. Miskelly, Executive Director, Fanshawe Pioneer Village; and,

  •    C. Cadogan, Chair, London Black History Co-ordinating Committee.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.4   18 Elm Street (Z-9496)

2202-07-25 PEC - Report - 18 Elm Street - OZ-9496

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Housing Development Corporation, London, relating to the property located at 18 Elm Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 TO add a special policy to Map Special Policy Areas applicable the subject lands, and TO add a special policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision Bonus (R8-4()●B()) Zone; and a Open Space 1 Special Provision (OS1(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the applicant applied to amend the Official Plan, 1989; however, that Official Plan has subsequently been repealed;

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:

 

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Housing Development Corporation, London and Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services;

  •    C. Connor, Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services; and,

  •    M. Marques-DiCicco, Holy Cross Parish;

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

  •    the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 through the provision of affordable housing on an infill site which makes efficient use of existing infrastructure;

  •    the proposed amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the key directions and general vision policies of the Neighbourhoods Place Type; and, 

  •    the proposed amendment would conform to the requested policies of the Multi-Family – Medium Density Residential designation were the Official Plan, 1989 not repealed and the requested amendment made.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.8   3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9491)

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9491)

3.8.b   (ADDED) G. Dietz

2022-07-25 PEC Submission - 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road - G. Dietz (Z-9491)

3.5   538 Southdale Road East (Z-9480)

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - 538 and 574 Southdale Road East (Z-9480 Z-9481)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Mansion Homes Inc. relating to the property located at 538 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A-1” for 538 Southdale Road East BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues for 538 Southdale Road East through the site plan review process:

i)    integrate existing, healthy, mature trees into proposed landscaped areas;

ii)    infill any gaps abutting property boundaries with trees, fencing and/or other measures to buffer new development from existing uses;

iii)    provide enhanced architectural treatment/details on the side facades to add visual interest as these facades are highly visible from the street;

iv)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre buffer between all paved areas and the property lines to allow perimeter tree plantings; and,

v)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along the west property line for screening between the driveway and the private residence to the west;

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

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

  •    M. Davis, Partner, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Mansion Homes;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 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 amendments conform to the in-force Neighbourhood policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the use, intensity and form of future development anticipated along a Civic Boulevard;  

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the permitted height and density of future development; and,

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of sites within the Built Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area in The London Plan with an appropriate form of infill development.    (2022-D04)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.11   574 Southdale Road East (Z-9481)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Mansion Homes Inc., relating to the property located at 574 Southdale Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A–2” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan review process:

i)    integrate existing, healthy, mature trees into proposed landscaped areas;

ii)    infill any gaps abutting property boundaries with trees, fencing and/or other measures to buffer new development from existing uses;

iii)    provide enhanced architectural treatment/details on the side facades to add visual interest as these facades are highly visible from the street;

iv)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre buffer between all paved areas and the property lines to allow perimeter tree plantings; and,

v)    provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along the west property line for screening between the driveway and the private residence to the west;

vi)    garbage on site be stored away from property lines, adjacent buildings and minimize odors to the greatest extent possible;

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

  •    M. Davis, Partner, Siv-ik Planning and Design, on behalf of Mansion Homes; and,

  •    G. Pepe;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 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 amendments conform to the in-force Neighbourhood policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the use, intensity and form of future development anticipated along a Civic Boulevard;  

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Multi-Family, Medium Density Residential policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the permitted height and density of future development; and,

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of sites within the Built Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area in The London Plan with an appropriate form of infill development. (2022-D04)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to consider Item 3.11 to after Item 3.5.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.6   Parking Standards Review (OZ-9520)

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - Parking Standards Review

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix B, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, to amend The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to clarify that minimum parking requirements shall not apply within the Downtown, Transit Village, Rapid Transit Corridor, and Main Street Place Types; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022, TO AMEND Zoning Bylaw No. Z.-1, Section 4.19 (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended above) to remove minimum parking requirements in the Downtown Transit Village, Rapid Transit Corridor, and Main Street Place Types; reduce minimum parking requirements in other parts of the City; and modify other regulations including bicycle and accessible parking requirements;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    Resident.   (2022-D02/T02)

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by E. Holder

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   2009 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-9348)

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - 2009 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-9348)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2425293 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 2009 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 25, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend section 1565_5 of The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, List of Secondary Plans - Southwest Area Secondary Plan, by ADDING a policy to section 20.5.9.4 “Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood – 2009 Wharncliffe Road South”, to permit a maximum mixed-use density of 176 units per hectare, through Bonusing;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 2, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the London Plan, The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (R9-1()*B-()) Zone;

it being noted that the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality mixed use commercial/office and residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 22.5 metres (6 storeys), 372 square metres of first floor commercial/office uses, 45 dwelling units and a maximum mixed-use density of 176 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan, Renderings, Elevations and Views, attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for the following:

  1.    Exceptional Building and Site Design

i)    a built form located along the Wharncliffe Road South that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance, street oriented residential units and active uses along those frontages;

ii)    a built form that addresses the corner orientation at the intersection with Savoy Street; 

iii)    a step-back and terracing of 2m minimum, above the 4th storey for the building along Wharncliffe Road South frontage and at the intersection providing a human-scale along the street(s);

iv)    a setback of 1-2m minimum, from the property line along Wharncliffe Road South and Savoy Street to avoid the requirement for encroachment agreements for building elements such as canopies, balconies, opening of doors, etc.;

v)    a significant setback from the property to the North to provide a transition to the existing low-rise buildings;

vi)    articulated facades including recesses, projections, balconies and terraces to provide depth and variation in the built form to enhance the pedestrian environment;

vii)    a variety of materials, textures and articulation along building façade(s) to highlight different architectural elements and provide interest and human-scale rhythm along the street frontages; and,

viii)    locates majority of the parking underground, behind the building and screened away from the street;

it being noted that additional site and building design criteria, not shown on the proposed renderings, will also be addressed as part of the site plan submission: 

i)    to include active ground-floor uses such as the principal building entrance, lobbies, common amenity areas, and street oriented commercial/residential units, oriented towards the public streets with direct access to the sidewalk along Wharncliffe Road South and Savoy Street in order to activate the street edge;

ii)    for the ground floor commercial units, provide for a store-front design with primary entrances facing Wharncliffe Road South and Savoy Street. This should include a higher proportion of vision glass, signage, double doors, an increase in ground floor height, and the potential for canopies and lighting to frame the entrance include direct access from the commercial unit(s) fronting the street to the City sidewalk;

iii)    provide functional primary entrances (double doors) for the commercial units along both Wharncliffe and Savoy Street with walkways connecting the entrances to the City Sidewalk;

iv)    redesign the surface parking lot in an effort to reduce impermeable surfaces and leave space for a more functional and centrally-located common amenity area, by removing the central ‘snow storage’ area, consolidating the drive aisles and exploring opportunities for a drop-off/layby off of Savoy Street to allow more convenient access to a street-facing main entrance; and,

v)    ensure common outdoor amenity space at ground level.

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of three (3) one-bedroom units will be provided for affordable housing;

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

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

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

v)    these conditions to be secured through an agreement registered on title with associated compliance requirements and remedies;

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

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

  •    D. Hannam, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, 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, and Neighbourhoods Place Type; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Medium Density  Residential policies within the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood; 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

  •    the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone.  (2022-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   672 Hamilton Road - Demolition Request for a Heritage Listed Property

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report - 672 Hamilton Road Demolition Request - Complete

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the demolition request for the dwelling on the heritage listed property located at 672 Hamilton Road:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the dwelling on the property; and,

b)    the property at 627 Hamilton Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to salvage historic materials and building elements prior to the demolition such as the carved wood details, columns between the windows, woodwork in the gable above the porch, and other decorative woodwork for potential re-use or heritage conservation projects elsewhere in the City;

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

  •    M. Marques-DiCicco, Holy Cross Parish.    (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   1067, 1069, and 1071 Wellington Road (OZ-9263 / Z-9264)

2022-07-25 PEC Staff Report -1067 Wellington Road (O-9263 Z9264)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Century Centre Developments Inc., relating to the properties located at 1067-1071 Wellington Road:

a)  the application BE REFERRED back to allow the Civic Administration and the Applicant give further consideration to  the 1050 square metre floor plate condition as recommended by the applicant and to direct Municipal Housing to have a further discussion with the applicant with respect to a larger mix of unit sizes in terms of affordable units and  to further negotiate the sixty-five affordable units, specifically to increase the ratio of 2 and 3 bedroom units that would be available and to report back at a public participation meeting to be held at the August 22, 2022 Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

b)  pursuant to section 34 (17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    a revised by-law; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    S. Brand, 717 Dunelm Lane;

  •    R. McPherson, 1096 Jalna Boulevard;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    C. Pentland, Beechmount Crescent; and,

  •    D. Lazzaro.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed (4 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

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)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That M. Campbell’s delegation BE EXTENDED beyond five minutes.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Commercial and Financial Information / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiation

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

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

A matter pertaining to a proposed land donation and pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.   (2022-M12)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes, in Closed Session, from 10:13 PM to 10:41 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:44 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 (6 hours, 21 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to the 13th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupinec, 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 and live in this territory. I just wanna let committee members know that the mayor will have to leave here, the meeting at 6.30 this evening. 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. So moving on to number one, any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none, we’ll move on to the consent items. Committee members, are there any that you wish to remove?

I see none, so therefore I am looking for a motion to move the consent items. Councillor Layton, seconded by the mayor. Any comments from committee members on the consent items? I see none, if the committee just will allow me to make just a brief comment.

We are, we do have an added second report of the ecological community advisory committee. It is their second and the first report that is on the consent agenda. Really appreciated the great information in the orientation that the advisory group had and really want to thank our staff for the orientation and the work that went into that. And with that, I am looking to approve all the consent items if we can vote.

Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Yes. It’s okay, I was going to ask a question of staff, but it’s more of a general question. So I’ll take that offline with them since the voting’s already opened.

And it was related to one of the items on the agenda, but it was more a general question rather than a specific to the item. So I’m okay with taking that offline. Has everyone proceeded to vote? Can we ask that question?

Chair, I’ve voted already, verbally at least. Three people have voted. Okay, if we can finish off the voting then. I’ll close in the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

Okay, moving on to our scheduled items. The first point one, a public participation meeting for 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road. I wonder if we can move to open up the public participation. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

If we can proceed to vote. Chair, closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, I would like to go to staff for a verbal, free verbal on this recommendation. Mr.

McSuell, we can see you, please proceed. The purpose of this report is to consider an application for proposed draft plan of the fake land condominium by 414 Incorporated. This is a residential development proposal located at 414 and 418 Old Wonderland Road, located generally east of Wonderland Road south and north of People Terrace. The policies of the London Plan required the public to be given and that a public meeting be held for the fake land condominiums.

The most of the application and most of the public meeting were sent to the property owners in the surrounding area. There’s only one reply received from the public. The purpose of this meeting is to report to the approval of authority any issues or concerns raised with respect to the application for draft plan of the fake land condominium and the concurrent application for site plan approval. The plan consists of 29 two-story attached to town of units with access from the Wonderland Road, site planning and urban design staff for working with the proponent on the buildings orientation.

Just the old Wonderland Road in recognition that this is the key and full location with regards to a budding neighborhood. The plans and building elevations have been reviewed by staff and are consistent with the intent of the London Plan and the Zoning By-law. If there are any specific questions from the committee regarding the staff report, we’d be pleased to respond. Thank you.

Thank you. Any technical questions from the committee? Councilor Turner. That’s just really quickly.

This application differs from what we’ve passed so far just in so far as it’s a proposal for a vacant land condominium, but everything else that we’ve done, has there been any amendments or anything like that from previous approvals and the site plan process meeting? Mr. McSill. Through the chair, there was a previous rezoning application on the site and there was public meeting and there’s also a site plan public meeting on this as well.

So this is the third public meeting for this site. Councilor Turner. Thank you. Just for clarification, there’s no proposed changes from what we’ve already passed and those other two meetings.

Through the chair, no, there’s no changes. Through you Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you. I’d like to now go to the public.

If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. With your name, address if you wish and you have up to five minutes. I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward.

I hear and see none, so I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, those and Councillor Turner seconds. And without we can proceed to vote. Chair will vote, yes.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And with that, motion or comments from members of the committee, Councillor Turner. I’ll move the application. I think this has gone through a few iterations and discussion and the public’s had a fair chance to have discussion and I think that’s actually formed a lot of the outcome in terms of the site plan.

So move this forward. Thank you for that. I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments?

I see none. We can proceed to vote then. Thank you, Chair. I’ll support this.

Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. So we are moving on to three point two, which is a public participation meeting 254 Hill Street. It is a demolition request for a heritage listed property and looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Chair will vote, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. And I see Ms.

Dent is here. If you have a quick verbal, Ms. Dent on this recommendation. Yes, through you, Madam Chair.

Can everyone hear me okay? Yes. Okay. This is an application to demolish the bill resources on the property at 254 Hill Street.

The property is located on the north side of Hill Street between Clarence and Wellington streets in an area known as Soho. The property is a heritage listed property, included on the city’s register of cultural heritage resources. There are several vacant lots within the vicinity of the property, as well as several newer infill and parking lots. There is a wooden out building located in the rear of the yard.

The building on the property is a two-story above brick vernacular house exhibiting Italian eight design elements with a low pitched hip roof and overhanging eaves. There is a rear north projection with a medium pitched gable roof and a small added entrance vestibule at the east side of the rear projection. Excuse me. The front elevation is framed by a continuous buff brick high luster running along the corners of the elevation and just belonging the overhanging eaves.

The porch extends across the entire front elevation and is supported by concrete blocks and wooden posts. The primary entrance is from the porch, which appears to be original wooden door and surround unit comprised of side lights, transins and wooden infill panels. Two rounded pilasters are positioned in the transom and mirror the door and side light geometry. The entrance is currently boarded up.

Most all window openings throughout consists of a shallow arched opening with brick for stairs and wood cells. A singular arch window opening is located on the east elevation. It contains a double row of brick wristwires. Some existing window openings have been blocked and with brick and openings on the first floor have been boarded up.

The building on the property is currently vacant and is in deteriorating condition. Heritage planning staff conducted a site visit and photo documented the property and built resources on June 29, 2022. Based on historical mapping and historical research undertaken as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment, the building at a 2254 Hill Street was likely built between 1861 to 1872. The site plan proposal was submitted in March 2022 for a three-story apartment building, which also includes the adjacent property at 248 Hill Street.

The proposed development is predicated on the development demolition of the built resources on the property and requires council approval. Written notice of intention to demolish the built resources on the property, along with a required Heritage Impact Assessment was received as a complete application by city staff on June 16, 2022. The HIA determined that the property at 254 Hill Street does not retain historical or associative or contextual value and that although the built resource on the property may be a representative example of the Italianate style, it is a relatively vernacular interpretation of this style and there are strong examples in the city. As well, due to its compromised structural integrity and safety hazards of the existing structure, the suggested mitigation approach to demolition is documentation of the existing built resource and salvaging of materials from the structure.

Staff have reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment and do not disagree with the conclusions of the Heritage Impact Assessment Report and staff is not recommending designation of this property. The owner of the properties encouraged to consider the salvage of the brick during demolition for possible retention into onsite features or incorporation into the new development. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Stend. Any technical questions? I see none. I will go to the applicant or the consultant if they are here.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. It’s Matt Campbell from Zolinika, preamble. I don’t have anything to add to Ms. Stend’s presentation and certainly would encourage Planning Committee to approve the staff recommendation.

Happy to answer any questions about the application or the proposed development if Planning Committee has any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

I’d like to now go to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this demolition request, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this request for demolition, please come forward. Here and see none, so I am looking to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hill here. We can proceed to vote. Chair Oppo, yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero.

And with that, I’ll go to committee and Councillor Layman. I’ll move the staff recommendation. I am looking for a seconder. Chair, I’ll second as you wish.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any further comments from committee members? I see none, I can make a quick comment.

From the chair, I am supported of this request. I also think it’s, I really appreciate that within the recommendation, the salvaging of the above brick during the demolition for potential reuse is really important. I want to thank and hope the applicant will do that. I know when I have guests or out of towners that come to our city, they’re always amazed at the above brick that we have in our city.

It’s not throughout our municipalities in Ontario and it’s really good to see if we can retain that brick. So with that, we can proceed to vote. Chair, I’m speaking out of turn, but while I’ve never been considered buff, I’m glad my brick is. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Okay, move along to the next scheduled item. And I’m sure we’re good on time here. So it is a public participation meeting for 432 Grey Street.

It’s a request to remove the fugitive slave chapel from the Heritage Designated Property, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Layman. Carollville, yes, thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Hilliard. I voted yes twice, but it hasn’t gone through. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero.

With that, I see Mr. Ganyo here, welcome. And I understand you have a verbal on this recommendation, please proceed. Yes, thank you, good afternoon.

The fugitive slave chapel is a significant cultural heritage resource. It is physical, tangible evidence of the past for an underrepresented community in London. The conservation of the fugitive slave chapel is vitally important. This afternoon before you is a request to remove the fugitive slave chapel building from its present location on the Heritage Designated Property at 432 Grey Street and to relocate it to the Fanshawe Pioneer Village.

The conservation of the fugitive slave chapel has been of concern for nearly 10 years, dating back to the demolition request at its former location at 275 Thames Street. In 2013, Municipal Council designated the fat property to prevent its demolition and provided financial support for the relocation of the fugitive slave chapel to its present location at 432 Grey Street in 2014. While some preliminary restoration activities have been initiated, it has not been possible to carry out the extensive restoration that the fugitive slave chapel requires. In 2021, the British Methodist Episcopal Church who owned the property at 432 Grey Street, including the fugitive slave chapel and the Fanshawe Pioneer Village.

And that’s discussions to explore the feasibility of relocating the fugitive slave chapel to the Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act establishes a process to consider a request to remove a building or structure from a heritage designated property. Following consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee, that’s the Community Advisory Committee on Planning. A Municipal Council may consent to, consent to with terms and conditions or refuse a request to remove a building or structure from a heritage designated property.

That consultation with the CACP was completed at its meeting on July 13th, with the CACP report concluded as item 2.2 on your agenda tonight. Their recommendation supporting the staff recommendation can be found on page 70 of your printed agenda. As outlined in the staff report, there are a number of key issues critical to providing a professional recommendation regarding the requested relocation. First, acknowledging that the Fugitive Slave Chapel continues to be a significant cultural heritage resource, but also the need for intervention and action to ensure its conservation for future generations.

Clarifying questions of ownership, which have been a hurdle in previous restoration efforts, the demonstrated commitment of the Fanshawe Pioneer Village to the conservation of this built heritage resource, but also the other resources within its present collection. In consideration of the relocation, a very practical question, can the Fugitive Slave Chapel building withstand another move? A structural engineer’s report was commissioned and provides confidence that yes, it can be. That engineer’s report can be found as appendix E of the staff report, which is on page 249 of your agenda tonight.

The proposed location within the Fanshawe Pioneer Village, how does the Fugitive Slave Chapel fit? The chronological timeline of built heritage and an appropriate space and context for interpretation have been provided for and planned within the location setting of the Fanshawe Pioneer. The remediation of the former location at 432 Grey Street will be required, as well as a reminder of the archeological site that’s still present at the original location at 275 Thames Street. Looking forward to the restoration of the Fugitive Slave Chapel, it’s been proposed to be restored to its appearance circa 1850, when the Fugitive Slave Chapel was most heavily used by its community and fest reflects its cultural heritage value.

A conservation plan is recommended as a condition of removal. This conservation plan will provide more details on how this circa 1850 restoration will be completed. Information has been submitted by the Fanshawe Pioneer Village to satisfy this condition and is presently under review. And taking a long-term perspective, the Fanshawe Pioneer Village is an appropriate steward of this resource supported by changes to its organizational and management structures to support a diverse collection.

Regarding the original location of the Fugitive Slave Chapel, staff and community members are working on the Council-directed commemoration of the area with further updates anticipated. Gaging community support and interest was a major component of the work undertaken by the Fanshawe Pioneer Village and its steering committee over the past year. Letters of support were received as part of this application and are noted in the staff report. You can find many included on your agenda tonight, starting on page 253 of the printed agenda.

Should Municipal Council support the relocation of the Fugitive Slave Chapel, there’s still some work to be done to facilitate this relocation. However, it’s hoped that the building will be moved this fall. Restoration is anticipated to take about 12 months. Also, should Municipal Council support the relocation, a subsequent report regarding the heritage status of the property at 432 Grey Street is required for section seven of the new Ontario Regulation 385-21.

This report will be prepared following the relocation of the building. I would be very happy to answer any questions that you may have tonight and would note that Don Miss Kelly, Executive Director of the Fanshawe Pioneer Village is online tonight as well. Thank you, Mr. Ganyo.

Any technical questions from committee members, Mr. Mayor? Yeah, thanks very much. I’m not sure if this is from Ms.

Miss Kelly or from Mr. Ganyo, but where within the Fanshawe Pioneer will the slave chapel be relocated in place? Sure, I can answer that one. Thank you and through the chair.

If you’re familiar with the Fanshawe Pioneer Village, the proposed location is between the log school and the blacksmith shop from the first concession. So this represents the transition of the Fanshawe Pioneer Village into a growing settlement. It is proposed to be set back from those two buildings and the street to provide an opportunity for context and interpretation as well. So through you, Mr.

Ganyo, just to confirm then from the standpoint of the historical perspective, it will be in the appropriate era as it were from when it was built and for the purpose and serve. But through the chair, yes, that’s correct. It does fit within the chronological timeline of the Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Thank you, thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other technical questions? Councillor Hillier? Yes, all for this, just one question.

I have read a few different people were mentioning that it might need reinforcements for the move and will those be required? And is the funding in place to do those reinforcements if required? Mr. Ganyo, can you answer that question?

Sure, thank you through the chair. Yes, it’s my understanding that some bracing will be required and that was articulated in the engineer’s report. I understand that work is underway to prepare for that. If I could, I would pass the question about any financial considerations to Don Ms.

Kelly. Councillor Hillier, great, and with that, I’ll move on to Don Ms. Kelly if you’re there. Sorry, Chair, I had another question.

Can I find you if I could, please? Okay, Mr. Ganyo, if you’re still there, please proceed, Mr. Mayor.

Thanks, Chair. So, I recall when I was involved with the dead field general store being relocated and it required significant hydro wires and all to be moved as the building was being moved. Now, that was fair distance away, not downtown, but how extensive is that operation technically to move it from its current location to the Pioneer Village in terms of hydro lines and the like. I’m sure that’s a delicate operation.

Mr. Ganyo. Thank you and through the chair. I’m not the expert in the technical aspects of building moving, but I would highlight that the same contractor continental moving has been retained by Fanshawe Pioneer Village to complete this relocation.

They moved this building in 2014, as well as other buildings throughout Southwestern Ontario. So they’ll be working with colleagues in the building division through both of the permits that are required to do that and any sort of considerations in terms of hydro wires crossing the railroad, those sort of things. So, my confidence that they do have the technical capabilities to do that and colleagues will be able to support that in the next steps. So, Chair, just to follow up the final comment, sometimes those are the hidden costs.

I’ll build on some of the earlier’s comments about the costs associated with making that move. I’m not sure if that will be borne by Fanshawe Pioneer Village in its entirety or will the city be contributing through any potential move through the city with so much street clothes? Although there will be some of that for to move the building, but can I ask if that would be, I’d like to ask if that would be absorbed by the Fanshawe Pioneer Village or raising the funds for this in conjunction with the volunteers with the State Capitol, how will that work? Mr.

Mayor, I’m just, I’m wondering if that is the question for Ms. Kelly, for Dawn Ms. Kelly. I know we have staff here on technical questions, but I will be asking Dawn Ms.

Kelly to speak next. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I don’t see any other or further technical questions.

So I will proceed to Dawn Ms. Kelly. If you are here, welcome. If you could state your name, address, if you wish, and you have up to five minutes.

I’m Dawn Ms. Kelly. I’m Executive Director at Fanshawe Pioneer Village. We’re located at 2609 Fanshawe Park Road East.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to address a couple of the technical questions, we have gotten some preliminary estimates from Continental movers for the cost of moving. And those estimates did include the permits and requirements for any police support and a hydrolined movement in preparation for the move. So again, it’s a preliminary quote.

And as they get into the full logistics of it, we’ll get a better idea of what those costs are. But we are planning for those as part of our fundraising efforts to be covered under our fundraising for the most part. So thank you for the opportunity to speak to the planning environment committee today regarding a request to move the fugitive slave chapel building from the heritage designated property at 232 Gray Street. The London and Middlesex Heritage Museum, which operates Fanshawe Pioneer Village, was offered the gift of the chapel structure by its current owners, the British Methodist Episcopal Church.

The church has granted our organization permission to complete and submit the heritage alteration permit on their behalf and has also signed a donation agreement to gift the building to the museum once all of the due diligence work has been done and completed. As a museum and heritage organization, it is not a request that we make lightly. We’ve invested a great deal of time and planning over the past year, working with steering committee, a steering committee of community members to ensure this relocation is made in the best interest of preserving the building and is also a move that is truly supported by the local black community and Londoners alike. With that support confirmed, we’ve been working to ensure that all mechanisms and required funding is in place for the project’s success.

So that once is at the village, a full restoration can be completed in a timely manner and the chapel significant cultural heritage presented authentically. As part of the planning process, the museum has formed a Black History Planning and Interpretation Committee to prepare and prepare the exhibit and programming plan for the building’s interpretation. As Kyle mentioned, as part of our half application, a structural engineer was hired to review the building. The report is included in the meeting package and verifies that the building can be safely moved with recommended sheathing and debris removal.

So they’re recommending we cover the any holes in the interior membrane of the building or in the floor of ceiling with plywood sheathing to give some extra stability in that, as well as removing any excess debris and materials that are currently in the building. We’ve contacted a contracted with a local heritage architect who has drafted a full set of architectural drawings that will be acting as our conservation plan for the building’s restoration. This restoration plan will not change any of the heritage attributes identified in the building’s current heritage designation. It will remain a one-story vernacular cottage-style building with the cedar-shaped roof and symmetrical front facade as pictured in the historic 1926 image from the London advertiser.

At the village, the chapel will be restored to the 1850s era when it was used as a place of worship and gathering by London’s early black community and as part of the underground railroad. The interior will be restored to an open one-room layout with reclaimed flooring where needed, hand-hewn, horizontal, wooden wane-scotting, and lath and plaster walls above. We feel the village can provide a permanent home and a long-term preservation for the chapel that will ensure that the historic truths that shaped our city and nations past are better shared. We hope the planning and environment committee will support our request to remove the chapel from 432 Grey Street and relocate it to the village.

As we work towards the ultimate goal of having the building moved, placed on a foundation, and the exterior envelope sealed before our year end. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you, Ms. Muskele.

Any technical questions? Mr. Mayor, I see your hand still go ahead. Thank you, Ms.

Muskele, for that very comprehensive comment as well as Mr. Guanyu. I will be supporting this, but I will tell you, that’s very helpful and this is so critically important for London’s history and should never be forgotten. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll move on to the public. Now, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the recommendation of moving the fugitive slave travel to Fanshawe Pioneer Village, please go forward. Mr.

Cardigan, welcome. Yes. If you can mention, say your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes, please proceed. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don’t have five minutes, but I certainly thank you for coming up. My name is Carl Cuducan, I’m London, and I am part of the steering committee. I am Chair of the London Black History Court and Committee, and we— Mr. Cardigan, if you can maybe speak closer to the microphone, you’ve lost your— Okay, sorry.

Yes, that’s much better. Yes. Okay, so I am Chair of the London Black History Court and Committee, and we are one of a number of organizations that are part of the steering committee have been for the last year. We have been working to organize this very important and historic move, this chapel, this building, this meeting place is very important, and not only for the history of the Black Community London, but I think for London’s broader community.

I’m also part of the fundraising committee, and we have been working to raise funds to support not only the current move, but sort of ongoing programming of the chapel. We are really excited about the work that we’ve done today. And we are very excited about the fact that we have a location at Fanshawe Parenting Village that is really helpful in ensuring that the history of London’s Black Community is place an important part in what happens at Fanshawe Parenting Village. On Monday the 1st of August, we will be part of the Emancipation Day celebration.

We are setting up a tent and information as part of that day and that celebration. And we are setting up in that location where the chapel will be located. And so we are doing a lot of work to highlight the importance of this building and this chapel in the life of London’s Black community. So we thank you for supporting this move.

It’s very important for us. And it’s very important for all of the organizations involved. And we really appreciate the work that Don and the staff at the village have done for the last year to make us be part of this project. And we thank you all for supporting it.

Thank you very much for those comments. Moving on, I went with Chester Seals is online. Just ask one more time if Mr. Chester Seeros is here from the British Methodist Episcopal Church.

I’ll move on now to if there’s anyone else here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. And I’ll last one more time. If there’s anyone here that I can see or online, please come forward. Move to the committee to close the public participation meeting.

Moved by Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Layman. We can proceed to vote. Here, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Thank you.

Hello, send the vote. The motion carries six to zero. Committee members, we’ve received quite a few edits from the community on this recommendation, and I am gonna look to the committee for comments for someone to move the motion. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will happily move the staff recommendation on that. And then I’ll share some comments if we’ve got a seconder. Councillor Turner seconds, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna share how incredibly happy I am that we are at this stage. This has been a long time coming. I know that all parties, our staff, Fanshawe Pioneer Village, the community partners involved have all been working very hard to get this before us knowing full well that there are challenges the longer that the tapas hits in its current location.

And the sooner we can get a two Fanshawe Pioneer Village and get the restoration work started, the better. I know that Councillor Fife-Milar is here in chambers tonight. I know he was one of the co-signers along with Councillor Palosa and myself and Councillor Saleh who were really encouraging our own council to make a financial contribution to ensuring the move could happen. The fact that we see the steps happening today that are going to be the next sort of phase in that relocation coming forward is fantastic.

This is an important part of our cultural heritage. This is one of those things that there are no other such examples of in our community. It’s unique and at Fanshawe Pioneer Village, the ability for it to tell a story as part of the wider community story in terms of the black community’s early history in this city is going to be a wonderful addition to the village and it’s going to make sure that the educational component of the heritage is taught not just tomorrow but for generations to come and that’s really important. So very happy to move this and I just want to thank our staff as well as the Fanshawe Pioneer Village crew and the community partners involved in making it a priority to get this done.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other comments from committee members? I see none. The committee will allow me.

I’ll make a brief comment here from the chair and I too am very supportive of this application and recommendation. I think having this fugitive slave chapel finally have a home where you can stay and be there hopefully for a very long time. Not only for the importance of the history of the black community but also for the history of all Londoners and I really want to thank staff and the Fanshawe Pioneer Village and also the community and the stakeholders that were very invested in seeing the chapel finally come to rest. So we could proceed to vote if there are no further comments.

Oh, before we do, I will go to Councillor Phythmillar. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Chair. And I just want to say, I want to echo everyone’s comments here and say, you know, Bravo, that we have gotten to this point.

I think that we see how everyone has worked really hard together to make this happen. And I go back to when we had this vote originally at Council. And at that point in time, the Mayor challenged us to get this done and to see this through. And what I’m really proud to say and really proud to see is that in our ability to work with staff, to work with Fanshawe Pioneer Village, to work with that committee, we’ve got this done.

And I think that’s, I think that says a lot about bringing these people together to do something that’s really beneficial to this city that will really acknowledge a part of our cultural heritage for generations to come. So I just want to thank everyone. I want to thank the Council that was before us that saw the need to move this property and get it to where we got it to. But to me, this is that last phase.

This is that last state, those last steps. So thank you to everyone for getting this to where it is today. Thank you for those comments. And with that, I see no further comments.

We can proceed to vote. Chair, this is the mayor of the vote, yes. Vote, the motion carries six to zero. Moving on point four, which is a public participation meeting for 18 Elm Street, looking to open up the public participation meeting.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hellier. Traveled, yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Stan, we have a staff presentation.

I think Mr. Maitlin is here. Mr. Maitlin.

Sure, I guess for those who are following, not in the room, the presentation is available on the added agenda that I’m speaking to. So I’ll just be going through those slides shortly. The application, OZ9496, is an official plan and zoning environment for 18 Elm Street. The application is made by the Housing Development Corporation of London.

For some context, the site is the site of a former elementary school that’s since been demolished. It’s about 0.8 of a hectare. It is currently zoned for a neighborhood facility reflecting that former school and is within the neighborhood’s place type. This third slide shows the current zoning.

The neighborhood facility or NF zone, the large rectangle on the center is the site of it. You’ll see it’s relatively close to both Hamilton and Trafalgar, slightly east of them, and it forms the majority of the eastern front on that street. So the proposed development is for a 42 unit, four-story mixed use building. The intention is that all 42 of those units would be affordable and the development is intended to be done through a partnership with the Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services Group.

The mixed use portion includes around 1300 square meters of community facility uses, including a daycare is the vast majority of that. The site also relies on approximately 0.2 hectares, just slightly larger than that, to be dedicated for a city park. So the next slide, if you look at that slide, this has Elm Street along the north, so north would be to the right-hand side on this image. You can see the park, which forms the northern portion along the right-hand side.

You’ll also see the main massing of the building up along Elm Street. You can also see a large courtyard space, kind of in the crook of that T on the left-hand side or the south, as well as the parking in that area. So as part of two applications, the first application is for an official plan amendment to form a specific policy area that would allow for this. Within the neighborhood’s place type, the current permissions are for three stories.

What this permit, sorry, up to three stories and four plexes, what this specific policy area would allow for is the mixed-use apartment building and through the bonus zone that will be discussed momentarily, up to four stories in the night. So the zoning by-law includes three aspects to it. The first is establishing a base zone. The base zone requested by the applicant was for an RE4 zone, which allows low-rise apartment buildings to allow for the community uses within it.

We’re also proposing special provisions to allow for the daycare center and the community center with a limitation in terms of max size for them. The setback adjustments bring the building closer to Elm Street and, or in other words, away from the residential to the rear of the site and recognizes that along the northern, or what will become the northern portion of this property as a park, so a reduced side yard set, or reduced side yard set back is appropriate. The parking space requirement of 46 spaces is only a difference of about two from the 48 that would be under the current parking reductions under discussion. The second element of the application is to establish a bonus zone.

In these instances, we look for facility services or matters to allow for an increased height and density. In this case, those facilities would be a daycare center, and we would expect them in one of 800 square meters to be developed as part of that. And as in response to that request, an additional height of 14 and 1/2 meters would allow the four-story apartment building. The other special provision provided is to establish that open space zone along the portion of the lands that are dedicated for a future city park.

This application, it was also followed by an application for site plan. That site plan file number is SPA 22043. That was submitted in May. We’ve received two submissions at this point, and the site plan and elevations are from the site plan by our control perspective acceptable at this point.

That allows us to be fairly confident that the site design that is being proposed through the bonus zone can be implementable at the site plan stage. So to finalize, the recommendations are for approval of the Official Plan Amendment to permit the building on the site. The base zone that would allow for the apartment building and the bonus zone that would allow for the additional height that allows us to also have the community uses that we desire in the area. I’ll remain for any questions as they come.

Thank you, Mr. Maitland. Any technical questions? I’m committee, Councillor Turner.

Thanks, Madam Chair. As for you to Mr. Maitland, thank you for this. So this, it’s highlighted in the report talks about how the London Plan doesn’t typically contemplate this mid-block intensification.

And so instead, we’re seeking a special policy area that allows for this. Perhaps not necessarily specific to the site, but I’d imagine we’re going to encounter a number of these as we move forward through the London Plan. It is a special policy area, the way that we’re going to have to continuously address these mid-block intensifications or is this something that gets addressed through the re-think zoning process? Mr.

Maitland. I think I’m not in charge of the re-think zoning process. In this specific one, four neighborhoods streets, there is not a permission for low-rise apartment building. Perhaps if Mr.

Adam was able to provide some update on re-think zoning and it’s thinking around that, whether we’re considering that through that or in association with, I know there are updates to the London Plan coming. Actually, maybe through Madam Chair, if I may. Couple of questions there. First off with respect to addressing it through the re-think zoning process.

The re-think zoning process is going to be developing the zoning based on the policies. And so in this instance, as Mr. Maitland noted, the policies wouldn’t support this level or this foreign housing in here, which is the reason for the special policy here. So re-think zoning is not going to address it in that way.

But as Mr. Maitland also indicated, we will be doing some reviews on the London Plan as we go through and tied in the zoning process. So if there are things where we see, there might be a bit of a disconnect between what the desire is in other portions of the plan and what the policies say then, that could lead to some policy revisions, that then could provide that direction for zoning. The other thing that I would note is that intensification for the purposes of the provision of affordable housing and intensification of sites that are currently under the ownership of the Middlesex London Community Housing Group, where in fact, opportunities for intensification might exist that might be in the interior of neighborhoods.

We’re going to be looking at that on a broader policy basis. So it wouldn’t be on a one-off. We would be looking at what does affordable housing look like? What are opportunities for intensification for affordable housing and also tied to that?

What might be opportunities for intensification on LMCH sites that might be contrary to the underlying policies of the London Plan? And then that would give you a solid policy in planning rationale for any future by-law changes. So in this instance, we don’t have all those pieces in place and as Mr. Meylin has said, there’s a rationale and a planning rationale been provided to support a special policy area in this instance for this application.

Councillor Turner. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. I appreciate that.

I think this was one of the challenges at the outset when we were looking at the London Plan. I remember asking the question about how we would deal with mid-block intensification as the London Plan directs it towards intersections or higher-order streets. And at the time, the discussion was around whether perhaps development permits might be the answer to that, but Mr. Adema identified in a previous meeting that the city doesn’t seem to intend to go that way.

So trying to come up with and having a sense of what we might see in future applications and how the city intends to address these, this is a helpful example of that. And something I’m glad to hear, Mr. Barrett, say that we’ll have the attention of the city as they put the pieces in place. Thank you.

And are there any other technical questions? Staff, I see none. I would like to now move to the agent, if the agent is here. Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

It’s Harry Frucio’s from Zilinka, Priamal. Mr. Frucio’s, welcome. We can’t hear you very well.

You could state your name. It’s Harry Frucio’s from Zilinka, Priamal, Madam Chair. Can you hear me better now? That is a little bit better, yes.

And you have up to five minutes, so please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s Harry Frucio’s from Zilinka, Priamal, here on behalf of the Housing Development Corporation and the Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services. We’re here this afternoon to basically answer any questions you may have on the application.

I wanted just to thank staff for their input, for their processing this application, a very timely manner and for the positive staff recommendation that we obviously support. Also with me in attendance today, our members from the Housing Development Corporation from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services and the architect for the project, Nicholson Sheffield Architect. I have nothing more to add, Madam Chair, except that we did hold the virtual open house on June the 1st of this year. And there were no negative comments provided during that open house session.

So with that, Madam Chair, I’m available, or all of us are available to answer any questions you may have. And I will turn it over to Miss Cathy Connor from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services to make her some comments, thank you. Thank you, Miss Connor, welcome. I mean, hello.

On behalf of Ontario Aboriginal Housing, I just wanted to say that we’re extremely excited to be advancing such important work for such an important project in London and bringing safe affordable housing to any community as hard work. And for that reason, I just wanted to say Miigwetch, or thank you for the passion and professionalism of our many local partners, including the HTC London, our consulting team, staff at the city of London, the NAMMRA and Friendship Centre, and lastly, members of Council and the public who have voiced their support for our development. Miigwetch, and I’m open for any questions that Council may have. Thank you, Miss Connor.

I would like to now go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation. Please come forward with your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. Ask again, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application, I wonder if I could go through lists that I have. Mr.

Wiccans, are you here if you’d like to make a comment, please proceed? Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn’t have any additional comments to make, but I’m certainly happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this application, please come forward. Hi, I’m Maria Marks, the sequel. Yes, welcome. From Holy Cross Parish.

We’ve just sort of been watching what’s happening and we’re excited that this is moving forward. The empty lot is not very pretty. So we were saddened obviously to lose the school, but we’re extremely excited about the new project. And I know some of our members live closer to the actual location, and they were worried about the height, but I’ve spoken to Mr.

Maitland in the meantime, and he’s answered our questions. So that was all we had. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Was that I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone from the public that would like to make a comment, please come forward. Sorry, I did have one more question. I’m new to all of this kind of stuff. If, what is a timeline for when they might start the actual construction?

After the public participation meeting, we can ask that question. Thank you. And moving on, anyone else that would like to make comments? I’m looking now to the committee to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Turner. Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero.

And before I go to the committee for a motion, sorry, comments, I would like to go to staff to answer the question from the public about timelines for construction. Any idea? Through the chair, we’re currently reviewing the second submission of site plan. So at this pace, we may be able to approve site plan.

Is there at least the next couple of months? Again, presuming that the zone of battle memory goes and official plan memory go through. I would look to OHS, Kathy, to speak to any timelines they have in mind, or perhaps carry in the HDC. Ms.

Conner, our anticipated construction start should everything go smoothly. Would be October, the first week of October, in around there, with approximately 60 to 18th month timeframe for completion. Thank you for that information. I’d like to know, go to the committee for a motion, comments.

Councillor Turner. I’ll move the motion and I’ll make some comments with the seconder. Councillor Lewis seconds, and we’ll go back to Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m glad that the staff have found a way not withstanding the London Plan policies here, I think, has raised to train my technical questions. How do we address mid-block intensification, especially with surplus school sites and the Health and Development Corporation? This looks like a great opportunity. And I’m very excited to see this serving Indigenous populations as well.

There are two or three Indigenous housing co-ops within my ward that had a chance to speak with the operators, and they had expressed a need to see more of this done. And so the expansion into this neighborhood with this proposal and this application, I think really will serve a need. And so happy to see the work together. Happy to see staff look for ways to make this happen.

And the collaboration between partners is going to be key. So I’m very supportive of the application and happy to put my vote behind it. Thank you. Any further comments from committee members?

Councillor Layman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few questions to staff. With affordable housing, would any of the units be read your take up?

Through the chair, as the zoning stands, there’s nothing in this zoning file amendment that would require them to take up that approach. The bonus zone is structured that the lift is commensurate to the public benefit that was received. In this case, the public benefit is the community facility or more specifically the daycare. So I would look to either HDC or OHS to speak to the kind of the instrument of how the affordable housing would look.

Is there anyone here from HDC or Iskona? Could you speak to the rents? Our rents are set at an affordable rate, which will be 79.9 or 80% of median market rent. Thank you.

Councillor Layman. Thank you. In the staff report, it’s mentioned that wraparound services would be provided. I wonder if they can just expand on what that would mean and if that would involve services or support staff to be on the property 24/7.

Ms. Conner. Or the question is to Ms. Conner, Councillor Layman.

Well, to whoever can just staff or through to Ms. Conner. I can speak to it. The support services that we would have within the building are primarily going to service the mothers, the single and urban indigenous moms that will be participating in our homeward bound program.

However, programming, whether it be cultural activities or cultural ceremonies, anything along those lines, anybody within the building that wishes to participate could. The support of services are not designed to have 24/7 services available. However, the case managers that assist the moms that are within the program have access, they have access to be able to reach their case managers at any time for referrals and any outside agencies or emergencies. And in addition to that, both inside and outside of the building will be monitored 24/7.

Councillor Layman. Thank you. One final question regarding that daycare. Would the spaces be just for the residents of the building or would it be public available for others in the community?

Others in the community would be, ‘cause there’s 91 spots available within the daycare from infant to after school care. So anybody that wishes to participate and join in the daycare absolutely can do that. Councillor Layman. - Thank you.

I will now go to Councillor Van Halst. I see your hand raise. Welcome to planning. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

And I appreciate all the work that’s been done on this. I believe it’s a great project, how it turned out is wonderful based on the webinar that I attended recently. And my only question was to our staff, how they found the residents’ concerns, the neighbors’ concerns were addressed at the beginning. There was some hesitation, but now I see that there’s quite a bit of support.

There was a concern I see for tree cover, having some of the trees remain in the fence. And I wonder how that will be dealt with. Mr. Maitlin, if I can go to you on the question around tree preservation in the fence?

Yes, sure. So that’s primarily related to the site plan application, which is active. The tree preservation, in general, the approach taken by the applicant is to preserve as much as possible. So the tree preservation plan that we’ve seen is only looking to remove either unhealthy trees or those that are be directly affected by the building.

Those that would be directly affected by the building are very minimal, just given the site historically has been either a school or paved over to the edge school lot. So the vast majority of the trees are going to be protected and maintained as the hedrow currently exists. Councillor van Hose. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Are there any more details that can be provided about the park that will be next door? At this point, I don’t believe the city parks group have designed it. I’m not sure if there’s anyone in the room, certainly if there is anything it is very early stages. Early stages, Councillor van Hose, did you hear that?

I did, Madam Chair. So I think this is a wonderful project that we’re all going to be very proud of. And I can’t wait to see a shovel from the ground. Thank you for the committee’s support.

Thank you. Any other comments from committee? I see none if the committee will allow me just to make a brief comment. I just see this as such a good news story here with this application.

And really want to thank all the stakeholders in the community that were involved and staff. And really, just working together, the idea of a community and daycare center in this facility, much needed daycare, 91 spots, really important that we see those numbers. And once again, thank you to everyone for being involved in this application. So with that, we can proceed to vote.

Those in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. So we’re going to the 3.5, which is the public participation meeting for 538 Southdale Road East. I am, we’re just dealing with that address right now. And I am looking for a public participation meeting to be opened.

Councilor Turner, seconded by our Councilor Hillier. Chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And just to let committee members know, this is a public participation for 538 Southdale Road East.

We do have a staff presentation on this from Mr. Parker. Welcome. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

The next report on your agenda actually deals with two separate sites on Southdale Road East. They’re very close together. They’re very similar in terms of the London Plan place type. They’re a neighborhoods place type.

The 1989 official plan designation is exactly the same. The zoning is the same. The consultants are the same. There’s only a slight difference in the development conflict for each site.

But what we’ve done is to prepare one report for both sites, but we’re holding two separate public meetings, one for 438 and then one later for 474 or 574. As I said, the London Plan for 538 is neighborhoods which allows a four-story building on a silvic boulevard. There is bonusing available for the London Plan to allow up to six stories, but the applicant in this particular case has not requested bonus zoning or bonusing for the site. The 1989 official plan designation is multi-family medium density residential, which is very similar to the neighborhoods place type.

The zoning is residential R3, which allows a maximum height of 12 meters, which is very similar to what the requested height is in this particular case for this zone. It’s currently vacant at the moment, 538, and the surrounding land uses to the north. There’s a single-family neighborhood. There’s a single-family neighborhood to the south as well, and a mix of single-family dwellings along the Southdale Road frontage.

As I said, the proposals are very similar for 538. They’re requesting a three and a half story back-to-back stacked townhouses containing 12 units. There is a rear yard requirement in the zone for six meters for this form of development. The consultants, however, have tried to provide a greater separation distance between the adjacent single-family residences to the rear and the proposed development.

And I proposed an angular plane, which means that for every one meter of height that goes up, you go one meter back. So it creates a 45-degree angle. So if the angular plane concept is included, that would result in a 10-meter setback, which is more than is actually required. Based on the concept they provided to us, they’re actually providing 30 meters between the back of this building and the rear of the property.

They are also proposing to include 32% landscaped open space. The requirement is 30. So they’re providing more landscaped open space than required. The lot coverage is intended to be 29% and the required lot coverage maximum is 45%.

As I said, the height proposed is 12 meters, which is exactly the same as the existing R3 zone. The zoning request they made to us was to essentially allow the three and a half story building at a maximum density of 75 units per hectare. They have requested a front yard reduction and that is due to trying to make the buildings, push the buildings closer towards Southdale Road to provide a better separation distance between the back of the structure and the rear, the single family detached residential units to the rear. They have asked for some interior side yard reductions as well and also asked for a reduction in the parking from 18 spaces to 12 spaces or essentially one space per unit.

Through the process, we received a number of comments and most of these comments are typical of infill applications that were received city wide. So the citizen concerns with regard to height, density, noise, light, the stacked townhouse concept, not fitting in with the neighborhood, loss of trees. The precedent that this would set for other development along the corridor, parking, drainage and garbage. All of these issues are assessed in our report and we go on at some length about the rationale for reviewing these issues and what we see as the resolution to these issues.

We have recommended approval of the zoning bylaw on this site. There are a number of site plan issues that we would like to see addressed to the site plan approval process. We’re really concerned about the rear yard and what is in that rear yard and providing more of a buffer between the proposed stacked townhouse development and the single family residential properties to the rear. So we’d like to see as many existing healthy trees retained as possible in a many area that’s in the rear yard and to try and infill any gaps adjacent to the property boundaries to buffer that area between the stacked townhouse and the single family dwellings.

We’d like to see a little more changes in the architectural details on the site besides because long term it’s intended to be a redevelopment area but in the interim as people are living there, there should be some consideration for at least providing some buffer and some privacy to those properties along Southdale Road that remain. We’re looking for a minimum 1.5 meter buffer between the all paved areas and to allow tree growth. 1.5 meters is the basic minimum for a tree to grow but we would like to see that increase if possible. That’s the end of my presentation for 538.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to pose them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker.

Any technical questions of committee members? I see none. I would like to now go to Mr. Davis.

Please proceed, you have up to five minutes. Thanks for the introduction, Chair Hopkins and just wanna say good afternoon to members of committee. My name’s Mike Davis, partner with civic planning and design here in London. Here today representing our client mentioned Holmes, who’s the owner and developer of this project at 538 Southdale Road East and then also the project at 574 Southdale Road East which is item 3.11 on your agenda.

First off, I wanna thank the team. I want to thank Mr. Parker for his work and consideration through this application process. We’re fully in agreement with the recommendations and the zoning bylaws that are presented in his report.

I think the approach in combining these two items is unique, but obviously staff have picked up on the similarities between our application here and our application at 574 Southdale. We understand that that item’s gonna be heard right after this one. From our perspective, we very much tackled these projects in parallel. So the sites themselves, the design approach, the public engagement strategy that we carried out, it was all very intertwined.

So I think it really only makes sense for me to speak to them as a package deal. And just to give you a little bit of an understanding of the history of where we’ve been with these projects, we were first approached by mentioned Holmes in May of 2021 to help explore the possibilities for redevelopment of these two sites along Southdale. I think we were struck by the size of the sites and then also the proximity, the interesting proximity to the commercial amenities and the future BRT line just a short walk east along Wellington Road. Those elements present an interesting opportunity to use these properties in a more productive way in a way that I think will better contribute to a lot of the planning goals that we have as a city.

Of course, we were guided by the London Plan, which we know is calling for significant intensification to occur along the Southdale Road corridor. So the London Plan is telling us that the Southdale Road of Tomorrow is meant to look and function a lot different than it does today. We look closely at the individual context of both of these sites, understanding different design measures that would be important to help make these projects fit with the neighborhood. And then starting in September of 2021, we invested the time to talk to residents.

So before we even came up with these concepts that are before you today, we had some really basic discussions about the future of Southdale, the London Plan and generally got their thoughts and opinions so that we could factor those into the planning for the site. That’s the process that’s led us to the zoning framework that’s before you. Mr. Parker’s provided the details of the project.

So I won’t get into that. I think a couple of decision points that I just want to highlight and call out that resulted from our community engagement. In both situations, we’ve made a conscious decision on these sites to limit the height of the proposed buildings to below four stories. So where the London Plan would actually contemplate an upper maximum height of six stories in this location, both concepts are below four stories, actually more in line with the existing R3 zoning that applies to the sites.

Mr. Parker spoke about the enhanced rear yard setback that we’ve provided. We know that there’s existing rear yard amenity spaces and homes that front on to Windblest north of the site. We wanted to create as much separation from those as possible.

And we think we’ve achieved that. Parking as well, we’ve designed the sites in a manner that’s going to allow for one stall per unit, plus an additional two stalls for visitors on each one of those sites. And I just point out that that’s well in excess of where the city is going with their new parking standards. Just to conclude, I think with both of these projects, there’s a really interesting opportunity to address the missing middle.

These zoning amendments are going to enable, we think is a unique form of housing, one that’s not common in the area, a form that can be developed at a more affordable rate than say a single detached dwelling or a traditional townhouse. You’ll know there’s subtle differences in the concept design for both sites. I’d be happy to speak to those individually if there’s questions, but from a big picture perspective, the principles for the projects and the zoning by-law amendments are very similar. We’re very excited about this milestone and of course, moving forward to next steps to make these projects a reality, the team definitely appreciates your time and consideration of our applications today.

So thanks so much. Thank you. Moving on to the public, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the recommendation in front of us, please come forward. Waiting to have someone join in here on the audio.

Not sure if we’re having technical difficulty with the audio, but I wonder if I could just ask again if there’s anyone else that would like to make a comment to this recommendation while we’re waiting. I’m chairman, if you’re waiting for me, I’m more concerned with the 574. That’s why I’m not speaking. If I can have your name?

Janina. Janina, okay, thank you for mentioning that. I know there is one other resident that is probably trying to, yeah, Mr. Dan, if you are having technical difficulties, we’re just unable to hear you.

I wonder if you can exit and try again. Usually what I do, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. What I think I might do, committee members, is just move on, I’ll ask one more time if there’s any members from the public. And I will have another opportunity to address this next one, I hope.

So with that, I will ask from the public, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation here and see none. So I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. And we can proceed to vote, Mr.

Mayor. Yes, chair, I’ll vote yes, thank you. Wasn’t the vote, the motion carries, 6-0. Go to committee for comments or a motion.

Councillor Turner. That recommendation. So we have a mover on the recommendation seconded by Councillor Layman. And I do see Councillor Palosa joining us.

Councillor Palosa, welcome to planning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question through you to staff or the applicant of residents. So glad to hear that the parking spaces will be too extra per each site to accommodate visitor parking, as that was a community concern.

Whether our community concerns was, how is the waste from the residents going to be handled? Is it going to be a central bin? Or are they going to put it on garbage and recycling day for waste collection as their neighbors would in the community? Thank you, I can go to staff for the question around waste removal.

For you, Madam Chair, that might be a better question to ask the applicants agent. Mr. Davis, are you still here? I am Chair Hopkins, happy to answer that question through you to Councillor Palosa.

For the 538, the current development concept for 538 Southdale, that would be a central collection. It may be done by a private collection contractor. We are exploring like a mallock system or an earth bin type of system for that site. There’s just some advantages in terms of truck maneuvering.

So that would be the strategy for 538. Councillor Palosa. And a question through you to staff. Some residents within the application for both properties recommended and rested informational on sidewalks for Easy Street.

Looking through you to staff to see how far out those development plans would be. You’re looking to have staff answer that question? Yeah, is there any plans eventually to build sidewalks on Easy Street? I’m not currently aware of any, but staff might have a long-term vision for the area, especially as we’re starting to see intensification come forward.

For you, Madam Chair, I’m not aware of any proposals at the moment to construct sidewalks. That may be something that transportation may be looking at long-term, but I’m not aware of anything at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes my questions.

Thank you. So we do have a motion on the floor. Any further comments from committee members? Seeing none, I’ll just make a quick comment here on the recommendation for 538.

And I know it’s going through the site plan process right now and really appreciate that there is ongoing work to ensure that there are impacts on the, that they’re looking at creating less impacts on the abutting single-family homes and increasing those setbacks to keep the retention of some of those trees that are on that property. So an opportunities for new fencing, which I think is very important for the privacy part in the community and supportive of this recommendation going forward. And with that, we can proceed to vote. Thank you, Chair.

I’ll vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you. Okay, do you have an item 3.11, which is the PPE and for 574 Southdale Road East since we’ve just received the presentation on Southdale.

If I wonder if committee members would like to move it up or wait till the end. We do have to hold two public participation meetings and we are within the given time. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given that we know we have individuals who are waiting to speak to that particular item and it is within the published time for dealing with it, I believe, ‘cause it was actually published not to be heard before 5 p.m. Whereas some of the other things further down in the agenda are 5.30 and 6 p.m. I’m comfortable with changing the order of operations, our agenda here and moving that item forward now. I’d second that, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I still need to vote on that one. I’m just gonna turn to the clerk.

I think we do. If you’re calling to question, Chair, I’ll vote yes. Thank you. Thank you.

I’d like to ask who seconded the moving it forward. Councillor Lewis made the motion. All the mayor. How can I forget?

Mayor, thank you, Mr. Mayor for leaving. Never forget your mayor, Chair, please. I won’t.

closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And thank you, committee members. So we have moved out 3.11, which is a public participation meeting for 574 Southdale Road East, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

And we can proceed to vote. closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Committee members, so we’ve just received the staff presentation that is for technically for both properties. We are going to open up the, I’ll go to the applicant.

Maybe I’ll go to the applicant. If there’s further comments, Mr. Davis, that you’d like to make on this recommendation, please proceed. You have to have— Through you, Madam Chair, I think that I was able to address most of my comments through the last item, nothing further to add.

I’d just emphasize that we are in support of the staff recommendation on this application as well. And if there are any questions, I will stick around and, of course, make myself available. Thanks. Thank you for that.

I’d like to now to go to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to 574 Southdale Road East, please come forward. Stating your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. Question, ‘cause the two properties are specific.

If you could just state your name, address if you wish. It’s Janina Pepe. The two properties are significantly different in the setbacks that are being requested. And did you have a question there, too?

You’re allowed to find— Are you improving the same thing that was said for 538, because it does not apply to 574, ‘cause that’s the totally different setbacks to the property lines being requested? That’s my question here. Right, if you can make comments, and we can ask that question after the public participation meeting, so the question is around the difference of the setbacks. The two puzzles are different, is what I’m saying.

Yes. What’s being proposed for 538 is different from what’s being proposed for 574. And if I can help you with your question, what question would you like to have answered? How am I supposed to make a comment if you don’t know what’s being proposed?

Mr. Parker not going to do the 574 presentation. I can ask Mr. Parker, he did the presentation for both properties.

He did 538. And he also did— No, he did not. 574. - No, he did not.

Okay, I will go back to Mr. Parker and ask him and confirm that, but in the meantime, your questions are around the setbacks, being different. They are different, because— Mr. Parker, if you can assist, please.

Yes, to the chair, by all means. I won’t go through the similarities between the two applications. We’ve already addressed that. I’ll just point out what the differences are between 538 and 574.

574 currently has an existing single detached dwelling on it. The other major difference is that 574 is actually proposed to be a three-story, eight-unit stacked townhouse block, plus a three-story six-unit stacked townhouse block for a total of 14 units, as opposed to the 12 and the previous one. It’ll be in two separate buildings, so the units will be split between the two with parking in between. In this particular case, a six-meter rear yard is required, and they’re providing 7.36 meters, and which is above the required rear yard setback.

They are also providing more landscape to open space than we require. They’re providing 41% as opposed to 30% is required. They have a lot coverage of 27 meters, or 27% as opposed to the regulation, which allows up to 45%. The other difference is that this building, or these two buildings are proposed to be only 10 meters high, which based on the consultants, or the agents plain, angular plane recommendation, would allow for a 10-meter rear yard.

In terms of the regulations that are requesting, they’re requesting a density of 70 units per hectare, less than the other one. Again, they’re asking that the buildings be pushed up to the front of the property, so a 1.5-meter front yard. They’re requesting specific interior side yard regulations, depending on which side of the building they’re on, and maybe the agent can explain the difference, and what the difference is between the two interior side yard regulations, because as I understand it, it’s not parallels to the street, it’s slightly offset. So perhaps Mr.

Davis can elaborate on that. And again, the parking is being reduced from 21 spaces to 14 spaces, or one space per unit. The issues were essentially the same, lots of different issues regarding, you know, height density, does not fit in the neighborhood, loss of trees, et cetera, et cetera. And the rest is essentially the same.

So there are a few differences between the two proposals, but perhaps I’ll let Mr. Davis expand on what the difference is in terms of the interior side yards to address Ms. Papi’s questions. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Davis. I know this is a little bit of out of order, but I do want to address the resident’s concern.

Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you. Yeah, I would note that I think one thing to emphasize is that the Zoning By-law Amendment, the Zoning By-law that is being proposed and recommended for approval by staff on both sites is essentially identical.

The Zoning By-law establishes the outer sort of envelope, the outer box of what is possible on a site. Within that box, there are multiple potential outcomes. And so that’s reflected in the fact that there are two sites, and in each site, there’s a slightly different concept that we’re working with. Each concept has been tailored to address the specific site conditions and try to develop a great oriented townhouse style project that best fits that specific site.

So in the context of 574, it is the development concept is slightly different. We’re looking at two buildings instead of one building. These buildings have been reduced in height to two, three meters. The building at the rear of the site is set back from the rear property line equivalent to its height.

So currently the building is 7.5 meters tall. It’s been set back from the adjacent rear yard, 7.5 meters approximately. That exceeds the city’s normal standard of six. So we’ve actually got an enhanced rear yard in terms of the side yard, which I do think that this resident was concerned about, a typical interior side yard for this type of project.

And within the actual, the base R5 zone where the building is, the side of the building is facing the rear yard. So there’s no windows into habitable space. It’s not a front or rear where we might have windows facing in. The typical setback requirement is three meters.

In this case, the concept, we have 5.3 meters. So in both cases in the rear yard, we’ve sought to be really sensitive about how we’re delivering this second building. And the fact is we have enhanced setbacks. Thank you.

I got back to Ms. Pepe is I wanna give you a few more, bit more time to make any further comments. I do have one comment ‘cause I did read the report. Mr.

Parker prepared in his report, he’s recommending a seven meter yard depth opposed to the 7.2 meters requested. That was not conveyed or I’m misunderstanding something. I will follow up with Mr. Parker at the end of the public participation meeting.

Any further comments? No, other than what’s normally been provided by the garbage, the noise level, the density, that standard. Okay, thank you. Moving on to anyone else from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation.

So can I make one comment regarding the parking issues? ‘Cause as I live on Easy Street and I am within 60 meters from the corner, any overflow traffic for parking issues will be on our street. And currently, since we do not have sidewalks and we are able to park on both sides of the street, this will drastically change with this development. So I’m hoping that there are going to be some proposed measures put in place to ease the residents that do reside very close to this new development.

Thank you. I’d like to go to the public, any further comments on the public? This is on 574 Southdale Road East. With that, I will look to the committee to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hillier. And we can see. Charles, yes, thank you. Thank you.

Hello, is it in the vote? The motion carries, six to zero. Thank you. And just to, I’d like to go to Mr.

Parker to answer the questions about the setbacks going from 7.2 to seven meters or the other way around. I’m not exactly sure if I heard that correct, but also questions around garbage and overflow traffic. Through you, Madam Chair. Yes, the way it’s described in the report could have been a little clear.

As Mr. Davis indicated, the typical rear yard setback is six meters and they’re providing a 7.36 meter setback on this property. So they are actually exceeding the requirement for rear yards. So it isn’t deficient at all.

I just misinterpreted the way I said that. So they are meeting the six meter rear yard setback by providing a setback of 7.36 meters. In terms of spillover parking on the neighboring streets, it’s something that happens periodically, but at this point in time, it’s difficult to tell whether that will occur or not. The whole intent of this form of development is to create a more transit-friendly development so that hopefully there’s less need for private automobiles on the property, there’s no guarantee of that, but that’s what the intent of these regulations are.

And as we pointed out in the report, the city is currently looking at reducing parking standards for development. As other cities have done, not only in Canada, but across North America, and relying more on the market to provide what they feel is a sufficient parking rate for their developments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

And with that, I’ll go to committee members for comments or Councillor Palazzo, I’ll go to you first. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question would be similar on 574. Residents had raised concern as some of the properties coming right up to the sidewalk of how the garbage on this site will be handled as well, recognizing when there’s waste collection day, making sure that the mobility for residents using this area is still accessible, recognizing Southdale is a busy road with mobility challenged people as well that live in the neighbourhood.

Thank you, Mr. Parker. Actually, I think Mr. Davis would be better to answer the questions just like last time.

I’m not sure exactly where the garbage facilities are because normally those are addressed at the site plan stage, and we don’t have a sort of a final site plan in front of us at the rezoning stage. So perhaps Mr. Davis can answer that question. Mr.

Davis. Yes, through you, Madam Chair, a similar intent for this project, the intent would be that there would be a central collection waste disposal system on the site, whether that’s through a traditional sort of bins or more of an earth bin mall-type system that will be determined through the site plan control process. Madam Chair, one question through you to Mr. Davis, just clarifying the parking as well, that this had 14 units and 14 parking spaces.

Did he indicate earlier as well that this site would also include two visitor spots? Through you, Madam Chair, yes. The current concept, the current development concept contemplates 14 parking stalls for residents and two additional stalls for visitors. Perfect, thank you, Madam Chair.

That concludes my questions. Thank you. I’ll now go to committee members, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair.

To Councillor Palose’s line of questioning on the garbage storage on site, we have a clause C in the recommendation that includes the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following. Perhaps it might be appropriate to add a six to that considerations for garbage storage on site, be done in such a manner that is distant from property lines and adjacent buildings and to minimize order to the greatest extent possible, something to that extent. If that might help Councillor Palose’s questions and the concerns that have been raised from the residents. Second, if I might, through you, Madam Chair, just to note for any of the community members listening that have concerns about parking on Easy Street, one of the options that are available to residents and homeowners along the street is to file a parking petition that can help determine what parameters they wish to have of parking along their street.

It could be two hours regulated or four hours or eight hours. Those things are basically to the determination of the street as long as they have consensus. So that is often a way that is used to address some of the parking impacts associated with adjacent development. Thank you, Councillor Turner, for those suggestions.

I know you’ve added a clause six in there. Looking to the committee, if there is support, do I have a seconder for that? Or maybe we should look at the wording first regarding the garbage storage. And I think we do have six on the added to the recommendation and just for the public.

I would like to read it, that consideration of garbage storage be away from property lines and consideration of owners be taken into consideration. That is the added part to the recommendation. Councillor Lewis is seconding that. And with that, any further comments from committee members?

Seeing none, I would like to then proceed to vote. Opposed in the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, now we are moving on to 3.6, which is the public participation meeting for the parking standards review, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

We are going to proceed to vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Presentation and Mr. DeSister, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon for the opportunity to present the parking standards review, item 3.6 of the agenda starting on page 353. We’ve also staff presentation attached on page 411 of the agenda. Slide two of the presentation outlines that the Zoning By-law typically regulates the supply and design of off-street parking.

The current approach to parking regulations requires a certain number of parking spaces to be provided for different land uses for new or expanded development. The City of London initiated this parking standards review last year to consider changes to the existing off-street parking standards approach in the Zoning By-law on ZET1. A background study was presented in November 2021, followed by an information report in April 2022. The report and recommended amendment before you today would remove minimum parking standards in the downtown, transit village, rapid transit corridor, and main street place types, reduce minimum parking requirements in other parts of the city by approximately 50%, increase minimum bicycle parking requirements, and modify accessible parking requirements.

The amendments are consistent with action 2.8 of the climate emergency action plan, which sets out to reduce or eliminate parking minimums, which will help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in the City of London by making more efficient use of available parking spaces and encouraging alternate modes of transportation to private automobiles. As shown on slide three, the amendment would implement the open option approach in the most urban place types. As I mentioned, the downtown transit village, rapid transit corridor, the main street place types, the dark areas on the map. The open option would eliminate parking requirements in these place types and allows businesses or developers to determine how much parking to provide on site.

This would not mean that no parking will be provided, but rather that a range of parking can be provided. Simply put, the underlying principle behind the open option is that businesses and developers know that parking needs best and should have the flexibility to provide an appropriate parking supply. Slide four outlines that in the rest of the city, the recommended amendment would significantly lower existing residential parking minimums. As shown in both in the right column, most residential parking ratios have been reduced by half.

Slide five shows the non-residential parking standards. For non-residential uses, a similar approach to implement minimum parking standards is recommended. A tiered approach groups similar land uses together. Tier one is the highest minimum parking requirements with one parking space required for every 20 square meters, of course, for area.

Tier seven has the lowest minimum parking requirements with one parking space required for every 2,000 square meters, of course, for area. Slide six outlines the accessible parking spaces. It has been the intent of this review to maintain a similar number of accessible or barrier-free parking spaces in our city. The current zoning regulations for accessible parking spaces are based on a percentage of the total required parking spaces.

However, the AODA acts basis its requirements on a percentage of the provided parking spaces. Therefore, to ensure adequate accessible parking, the zoning by-law will change accessible parking requirements to be based on provided rather than required spaces. As shown on slide seven, the report recommends that bicycle parking standards will no longer be based on the amount of provided vehicle parking spaces. Residential development, the five or more units, so provide one bicycle parking space per residential unit.

Currently, this is 0.75 parking spaces per unit. No residential development shall use a tiered approach to determine minimum short-term bicycle requirements. This is a minimum of three bicycle spaces, plus a range from 0.1 to 0.3 spaces for each 100 square meters, of course, for area. Bicycle parking is not subject to the open option and will be required in all parts of the city.

The recommendation is that proposed by-law attaches to PENHB be introduced to a mental London plan to clarify that minimum parking requirements shall not apply within the downtown, transit village, perpetuates at the corridor, MSP place types, and that the proposed by-law attaches to PENHB’s A, we introduced a mentioning by-law Z1, section 4.19, to remove minimum parking requirements in the four aforementioned place types, reduce minimum parking requirements in other parts of the city, and modify other regulations, including bicycle and accessible parking requirements. Thank you, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you, any technical questions from committee, Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair, that’s for you.

Thank you, Mr. Dukuster. This is a good first step. I’m interested to know what the next steps are in this.

There’s a couple conspicuous absences in this, and one of those is talking about electrification of spots, and then also some discussion in the report about parking maximums and how it’s difficult to gauge at this time due to the pandemic and some of the work involved. However, it seems that these are kind of low-hanging fruit. If we’re going to optimize or maximize the best and best and most appropriate use of land, it’s not through parking lots, it’s through habitable forms, or through recreation spaces, and open spaces. How do we address these things?

And are these things that come in future iterations, or are they just left on the cutting room floor? Through the chair, this is Justin Adema. I’m happy to respond to that question. So I think the Councillor’s correct that this is the first step and not the final step.

So as you all know, we are in the process of reviewing our zoning by-law comprehensively and actually preparing a whole new zoning by-law. And that’s actually where this study originated. It was intended to form that background analysis that would feed into the rethink zoning process and that new future by-law. However, along the way, we found that there was a more pressing need to address parking minimums.

And so that’s why we decided to bring the amendment forward that you see here today, which only addresses the current regulations in zoning by-law Z1, but that’s not to say further review won’t be conducted and incorporated into the new by-law. And some of those items that the Councillor mentioned, parking maximums requirements for electric parking spaces will certainly be considered then, but we wanted to move forward quickly with this. And that’s why we scoped the analysis to just parking minimums in the current zoning by-law and that further analysis will be part of rethinking zoning. Councillor Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Adema, through you, Madam Chair. So one is there a sense of what that timeline and I recognize part of the rethinking zoning process. That’s a fairly lengthy process.

I mentioned it’s probably over the next five years or so that all gets done. The second question, sorry to compound them here a little bit. In the non-residential uses, tier one, tier two, tier three kind of separates out kind of standards for restaurant retail and office. It seems that there’s a lower standard for office where we might actually want to encourage cycle commuting.

Restaurant retail might be incidental uses of cycling, but to place the lower standard on office seems a little conspicuous. Perhaps a bit of comment on that, Madam Chair. Mr. Adema.

Thank you through the chair. I’m happy to speak to the timing and maybe I’ll see if Mr. DeCuster wants to respond to the specific questions or on bike parking. So rethinking zoning is a very large process and lengthy process.

We started working with a team of consultants towards the end of 2021. And we’re now well into that analysis. We expect there to be a first draft of the by-law presented. Sometimes the first half of 2023, hopefully bringing a complete version by the end of that year or to 2024.

Council attorney? Mr. DeCuster was going to. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The recommended bicycle parking rates are based on best practices and other municipalities, as well as the ITE rates, which is the Institute for Transportation Engineers in North American Organization that does a lot of studies to parking utilizations. So based on those and scientific research as well, these are the bicycle parking standards that we have landed on overall to increase biking opportunities and safe storage for biking across our city and to make it more attractive as opposed to the private estimate. Thank you. Council attorney?

One final question, just Toronto, just this past December, removed parking minimums in general. Is there any reason that we didn’t go to that degree? There are obviously some exceptions within that, but it seems that we’re not going close to as far as that. And it seems we’re kind of taking baby steps along that path.

Thank you, Trudy Chair. I can take the first step of this and please feel free to add on. So based on our research during the engagement phase of this project, the concern for parking spill over was frequently mentioned. This is basically that not sufficient parking is provided on site and as a result, people will drive through neighborhoods, through communities looking for parking often on streets, for parking facilities.

So in order to prevent that concern, we have landed on the hybrid approach in line with long and planned policy 271 to ensure that excessive parking is not required in those areas that have, includes availability of transit, but at the same time to protect the more residential areas in our city from parking spill. Yeah, go ahead, Council attorney. Are you done? Thank you.

Any other technical questions from committee members? I don’t see any. I do have a couple if the committee will allow me to speak here from the chair. And I guess the first one I have is around the bicycle parking and we are increasing it from one to five units.

And do we just assume that if a building has more than five units that there will be bicycling spots provided within these new standards? Or is that sort of done through the process there? Thank you for that question. Just to provide some clarification for residential development with more than five units, currently there are already minimum bicycle parking standards in our zoning by-law, which is 0.75 bicycle parking spaces per unit.

However, the recommendation before you today will increase that amount from 0.75 to one. Bicycle parking space, which applies for two all residential developments with more than five units. And then additionally, we are also raising the short-term bicycle parking requirements for non-residential uses, which is the tier two approach with a minimum of three spaces plus an additional 0.1 to 0.3 spaces for each 100 square meters of cross-floor area. Thank you for that.

And I just wanted to get clarification around the bicycle spots will be included in residential and buildings. Is that going to be a requirement or is that sort of developed through the application process? Through the chair, when it’s listed in the zoning by-law, it applies to buildings with five units or more. And that would be required through the site plan process or any other time where zoning compliance is required.

They would be looking to confirm the existence of those spaces. The requirement isn’t included for buildings with less than five units. Because as you say, there’s an assumption that there’s space and it’s not required to be demonstrated on a site plan or in another zoning compliance type of review where those spaces would be provided. Thank you for that and I do have one other question around, I know Councillor Turner referred to sort of taking these baby steps along the way here and I wonder if you can speak a little bit more about why we’re not looking at these parking standards right across the city.

Just to have a better understanding, why not now as opposed to later? Or down the road? Yeah, so Mr. DeCuster has spoke a little bit to this, I think, and so when we initiated this review and we were looking at the three types of approaches to parking regulation that include the minimum, maximum and open options, we were at that time, I would say leaning more towards applying the open option citywide.

But there were a few things that we heard in the engagement that we did. The first through the meetings that we had with this committee and through council, we heard concerns about existing businesses and not interrupting their operations, especially in this time where we’re still recovering from COVID and there’s still concerns around business viability and those sorts of economic considerations. We also heard a lot of concern about spillover parking and also from developers who considered the impacts of nearby developments not providing enough parking and the impacts on their developments that would provide and would end up capturing the demand from surrounding developments as well as their own. So balancing those two inputs that we heard, we decided at this point to recommend this hybrid approach which is still a substantial step I think in the right direction eliminating parking requirements from all of the most intense urban place types in the London plan as well as cutting the minimums by half for the most part across the rest of the city.

I think is a substantial step in that direction. But yeah, again, based on that feedback from council and the public and to allow that concern around spillover parking that we selected to go with and to recommend the hybrid approach. Thank you. And with that, I’ll go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak.

Oh, Mr. Wallace from the London Development Institute. Welcome. No, you’re not.

Mian? Oh, there we go. Thank you very much. Sure, and if you could state your name.

Yep, it’s Mike Wallace from the London Development Institute. Thank you, Madam Chair and Councillors, it’s a pleasure to be here back in council chambers even though I’m behind both proof class. But other than that, we’re in good shape. We were, want to thank staff for their report.

It was a very thorough report we thought. We are in support of staff’s position in their recommendations. We did, you know, I want to be frank with you. We did, my organization represents mostly residential developers.

Some of my developers, some of my members do commercial also, but it’s the, and there was a fair amount of discussion. Councilor Turner on what should be appropriate should we leave it to the marketplace, sort of leave it open across the city. And there was a variety of opinion amongst our group and there was concerns raised that, which you basically heard in the last public meeting that you had here, that there’s a development happening. If there was open and the developer decided that they weren’t providing any parking spots, that becomes, there is no off street parking then.

It’s all on street parking in somebody’s neighborhood. So, and that, you know, I have family members, a daughter who has experienced it both. She lived in Manhattan for four years. She lives in Toronto and they’ve made decisions on whether to have a car or not.

They’re close to a subway station. There’s all kinds of different transportation opportunities in those environments. And that’s why it’s very difficult to compare us, I think here in London to other communities that are doing different things because we live in a different, we experience a different environment here. And I do appreciate that staff highlighted the mobility master plan that’s coming.

My discussions with those staff members who are doing that study have indicated to me publicly that the actual number of automobile registrations is actually higher as a percentage basis than the growth in the population. And in fact, there’s a car registered, a number for almost every adult that lives in London. So that’s a lot of automobiles and just saying, opening it up could be a challenge where one development has decided that they’re not going to provide parking and the bylaw says they don’t have to. And what does that do to the next development beside there?

And then that issue then becomes on street parking and that becomes something at this table every single time. So we think this is a very good balance. It may be a first approach. We may have some more discussions over the next year and a half as we go through the rethink zone piece.

We’ll have some experience of what it’s like. And I we are fully supportive of the zero approach, no requirements approach in the transit centers in downtown. And we will see how that goes. We’ll see what that attracts and what that does for example, in the area of office development, new office development.

Don’t forget this is going forward. This isn’t retroactive. And so does that help attract office redevelopment and new businesses in town or does it not? So we think this is a very appropriate approach.

We do really thank the staff for their interactive pro active communications and discussions with us. You know, if you just look at the Get Involved website, you had 336 responses of 400,000 people in the city. And this kind of policy piece that affects every single neighborhood in the city, we can’t just rely on that. We need to be and the city’s done a good job of being proactive and finding other communication tools to get feedback on any policy changes coming forward.

And so we understand and appreciate the process that opened to the public to allow everybody to be involved certainly in the Get Involved piece, but there needs to be more on interaction with the general public on big policy issues such as this. And this doesn’t sound like much, but this is a big, big change. This is a big change in the parking requirements that London is experiencing. And in some of those other communities, their changes are relatively recent.

We do not know what the net effect will be in the long run. And so we appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Today is my 35th wedding anniversary.

I’m going to stay for this vote, then I’m leaving. Not that anything else is not important, but if I want to make 36, I got to go home. Thanks very much. Thank you, Mr.

Wallace. And I must say here from the chair, it is wonderful to see people up in the gallery again. It’s been a long, long time and it’s just great. I want to move on.

Is it to anyone else who would like to speak to this parking standards review? If you can come forward, state your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. My name is Anna Maria Velastro. If you did a survey of transit users, you would see the majority of people don’t own cars.

That’s why they take transit. If you own a vehicle and you can park your vehicle at the end of your trip, chances are you’re going to drive. And the way to really support the transit system is to make it harder for you to get in a vehicle and park your car at the end of your trip. You have to push.

That’s what has to happen. That’s what cities do. They’re starting to squeeze out parking because there’s no land space for parking. And you have to start making decisions about what you’re going to house and people.

And then as you have more ridership, you have a better system. They go together because you’re not going to have a good system if the buses are riding empty. So somewhere you have to make a broader decision, not just about, these are not, these are proven facts. Other cities have done it.

Not all cities started off a great transit. They transitioned out. And one way to start doing it, and this is just the simplest thing, just remove minimum parking requirements across the city. You’re not sitting maximum parking requirements, which is what I think should happen.

You’re just leaving it open. And I don’t see how that’s harmful in any way on how that’s going to impact office development. To me, it just sounds all silly. And I have off street parking in my neighborhood.

It’s not a big deal. I lived in Toronto for 30 years. There’s permit parking people. The city actually banned front lawn parking because it removes the curb.

And they can fit more cars in a curb than if everyone just parked their car on their own property. So these decisions are made because they want to move people to transit. And you have to push. And this report talks about climate change.

And people want you to get on with it. They want you to make the hard decisions. They want you to move forward on climate change. And the transit is just a good way to move people.

And it’s actually enjoyable. I take transit in the wintertime. I drive in the summer. I take transit.

I like the transit. It allows me a time to daydream for a few minutes. It’s efficient. And it’s a good way to move people.

So just make the decision. I just find these other issues that were brought up, not valid, not in the big picture. So I’m just asking you to please be courageous and decide what you want. If you want transit, then make these decisions.

And you need to start squeezing our parking because people will always drive if they can park their car at the end of their trip. Thank you. I’d like to ask if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this review. Please come forward.

Welcome. If you can state your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes, welcome. A little bit closer, we can’t hear you. Or is the mic on?

Nope, we can’t hear you. Oh, okay. He says it’s not on. Is that better?

It is. Okay. Just in response to the comments with the last speaker, primarily, parking is an issue in London. London is not used to using transit a lot.

You notice a lot of empty buses. And since with the more rapid system you’re planning, you’re only doing two of the four lines. It’s pretty obvious that it’s not going to be that easy for somebody to hop on that transit system and get to where they need to go faster than they could get there in their vehicle. So it might be a great thing to have, but until London has a better transit system, it’s not going to fly.

People are going to have to have a vehicle. And when you put up buildings in places where they can’t access groceries and things easily, they still need a vehicle to do that. I know some people do use the taxis, but if you’re used to driving, which a lot of Londoners are, it’s not going to change overnight. So it would have been nice had the transit system gotten in place first before they start trying to cut parking.

And I’ve experienced the parking thing already, having to call in to get them to enforce the parking bylaw on the street because the college didn’t have enough parking space. And so they were into the subdivision and you could barely get out your driveway because the cars were bumper to bumper along a road that’s not really a two-lane road. So parking is an issue in London, yes. And it will continue to be an issue as you increase the density of the number of people in London and the transit system doesn’t get there before the people, basically.

Everything takes planning, unfortunately, and planning is really important. Anyways, thank you very much. Thank you. I’d like to see if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this parking review standards, parking review.

I’m not sure if there’s anyone online but if you can come forward, last one more time. See, there is, I thought we did have someone there and I’m just gonna refer to the clerk. Do you see anyone? Okay.

So with that, it’s no further comments from the public. I’ll ask to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by the mayor. We can proceed to vote.

Thank you, Chair. I’ll vote yes. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries.

6-0. There’s for comments. Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Sorry, I’ve heard a few comments both from staff and from the public and I think it illustrates what the challenge is here. Mr. Wallace identified that the number of cars that there are in the city and that’s a problem. That’s not a good thing and it really illustrates why there needs to be some measures, especially some downward pressure from the municipality to help nudge that in a different direction.

Some concerns about London’s not gonna change overnight. You’re right. Neither does this. If whatever happens, this is prospective, not retrospective, it doesn’t pull the rug out from the number of parking spots that are currently available.

It’s talking about new developments, new applications and everything that goes forward from there. So I think this approach is too tepid. It really misses on a couple of opportunities that we have. We declared a climate emergency, not a climate warning and that requires bold action.

This isn’t bold action, unfortunately. I do agree that there are some significant reductions proposed here and I think that’s laudable. I’m glad to see those, but I think we need to be looking city-wide, not just in certain areas. I think we also need to be looking towards some opportunities for electrification to promote the transition to electric vehicles where people are going to choose to use vehicles instead of modes of transportation.

I think we need to up, especially in office places, so the opportunities for cycling. So there’s a number of things in there that really concern me. Other cities and not just Ontario cities, North America and across the world, especially in Europe, have done much better with this than we’re doing. And I’m worried about this.

Ideally, I’d like to refer this back. I’m not yet getting a sense that we’d have support for that. So we’ll have some more discussion at council for tonight. I’m reading through this, I was kind of excited about it and the more I read through it, the more I was kind of disappointed at the things that we’re not doing here.

And so at this point, I’m kind of feeling that I need to vote against it. I think in the alternative, I would like to see some timelines for those other elements that were spoken about in terms of electrification, in terms of a broader application within the city in the zoning process. What I heard was it may be addressed and the timeline may be a few years, but that’s a little too nebulous for me to be able to get behind at this point. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I will move the staff recommendation to see if there’s a seconder and then hold my comments until we’ve got a seconder for that. Hey, there is a seconder in Councillor Layman. I know the mayor would like to speak as well.

Go ahead, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And I do understand Councillor Turner’s reservations. Is anyone else getting a big echo here?

There we go. I think that’s better. Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand Councillor Turner’s reservations.

I actually thought we might see something a little bolder too. I like the idea of going towards a more open concept and letting things be decided by the demand. But I think this is a good step, a good first step. It’s not as far as I may have gone, but I’m not going to deny moving forward with it.

And I think to one of the members of the public who spoke, the point that transitions are going to take time is absolutely right. And I think this is a step in that direction. Mr. Wallace commented on the rethink zoning process and what will be going on with that.

This isn’t the end of this discussion. This is a first step in moving things forward. So I will support it. I don’t think we are done with this conversation by any stretch of the imagination.

And I thought of, as I was listening to Councillor Turner, I thought of how in the East Lions Community Center, in part of the planning and build out, we actually have roughed out for electric vehicle charging stations. They aren’t there yet, but they planned for them to be installed in the future, which actually was something that was put in after the preliminary design, because it wasn’t initially in the plan. I think we need to do a lot more of that and show leadership in terms of municipal facilities, lead the way in terms of making sure that those things get built into our plans too. So I think where we are today is something that I can support as a first step.

But we do, parking is not a great use of space. And we continually have discussions about downtown, surface parking lots, or I should say core area, because I want to make sure that we’re really clear that they’re not all in the downtown. They’re scattered throughout the core, which is a bit wider area. And how many of them are wasted space and what they may be better used for.

So I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination, this discussion ends if Council approves this. I think it’s just a first step. And it’s an important first step to take. Mr.

Mayor, I see your hand up. It is, thank you, Chair. I think this is a big first step. And I’d like to applaud the staff for the review.

I appreciate all of the comments made by the public. And this is not a war against cars. I just want to be clear. And I say that carefully and respectfully, because at the same time, I’ve heard Council members, even most recently, Councillor Lewis, and in the, I believe the issue or two before, Councillor Turner talked about electric cars.

Well, guess what? And cars need a place to park, but we’re trying to find that ballot. And I think what we’ve done is, as an initial first step, we struck a balance and hope Council will support this as we move forward. And that all of Council will support this for the work that staff have done as we’ve directed them to do.

And I think their efforts are extremely credible. So thank you to them. And I will support Councillor Lewis and Layman’s motion to support the staff recommendation. And, Chair, as you’ve indicated, I have another significant commitment that after the vote, when that is done, I’ll excuse myself with apologies to the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any other comments from committee, visiting, Councillors? Councillor Fai from L.R.

Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the conversation here. I think Councillor Turner’s correct. One of the things when I read this that I think is missing out of this document is a conversation of electric parking stations in the downtown. I go further on the bike storage piece, and I think secure bike storage is something that we really need to push.

When I talk to people at what holds them back from riding into the downtown, one of the questions that always comes up is the ability to have secure storage. And you know what? I think at times we need to recognize our realities and our weaknesses, and how do we address those realities and weaknesses? And I think that that’s a very important piece.

The other thing here is that I look at this as we move forward, and I know Councillor Turner commented on the piece of the timing, but post-pandemic, we’ve seen changes in the last two years. When you think back two years ago, when you were in the downtown, you saw a few, but not a lot of delivery vehicles going into restaurants and picking them up. Now, if you sit outside a restaurant on a Friday at five o’clock, there is a constant flow of delivery vehicles coming in, picking up food and taking them. We need to be able to sort of look and see how that system is gonna work post-pandemic, and do we need to allow for different types as things change?

Because things are different now than they were two years ago. There’s no question. I think this is a good first step. I’m gonna say I was probably different than Councillor Turner.

Councillor Turner read it first, and he was really excited. When I read it first, I wasn’t that excited, but the more I looked at it, and the more I thought back, and I can speak to Councillor Lewis and I sitting on Committee of Adjustment, I would say by weekly, we had parking items come in front of us because people wanted reduced parking. This fits now more into that mold, and I really like that, and I think this is a great opportunity. But again, I appreciate you letting me be here today, and thank you very much for the comments.

Thank you, Councillor and Councillor Layman. Thank you. What I like about this is the collaborative method that staff took in trying to get a viewpoints from public and from the commercial developers side of things. My inclination obviously is to, or not obviously, but it’s to more of the open side of things, because I believe we ought to let the market decide.

We can’t force people to drive cars, to get to places, and aren’t going to force them to take transit or bike to other places. The market will decide that, and so developers must need an opportunity to read the market and provide a product that they think the market will respond to. We have seen cases where there’s been too much parking forced on developers that ends up in a situation when I came to this committee a while back with the development in Northland and not Fanshawe, where parking spaces were not being used, and the developer wanted to add other units. So, I appreciate Mr.

Wallace’s comments in providing insight into the unknown unknowns, and that is when you have open parking, the developer will consider because it’s less costly, not providing a lot of spaces, or sufficient spaces, counting on the people that are living there, finding other spaces, which could encroach on neighboring properties, which becomes another issue, and that other properties are having to bear the cost of that and the security, but the oversight to protect their parking. We all know that downtown parking is a number one complaint. We hear about people coming downtown, finding places to park, but again, that’s on the developer’s side, on the commercial side, and we know from commercial real estate, people I speak to, for people considering office space downtown, again, parking is a deer that leads to offices not deciding to locate downtown, but again, that falls on the developers and what type of project they want to put together. So, this leaves the onus more on them to read the market, and in some cases, I think, will lead to better development and more developed, because the handcuffs will be removed.

As far as, you know, electrification base, yeah, that’s coming, but again, the market will provide that as people demand that service and developments that they’re looking to rent or have condos in, as society moves more to vehicles that need that power adapter at their place of residence or business. So, that is why I seconded this motion and this staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll go to Councillor Turner, or I know we’ve got a visiting Councillor Cassidy is here. Maybe I will go to her first, and then I will go back to you, Councillor Turner. Welcome, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for recognizing me at your committee. I do hear Councillor Turner’s concerns. I know there is a need to go further and go faster, but I do think that this is a good first start. I think that when we continue to see sprawl happening in the city, despite the controls that we have in place to encourage more intensification and infill projects, and to try to discourage sprawl, it still happens.

And one of the main reasons for that is because it’s just cheaper. It’s just cheaper to build housing on a greenfield space than it is to build in a core area. And so, I believe that this provides more incentive to builders and developers to build downtown residential units. We know that it’s expensive to build downtown.

We know that it’s expensive to build in an already built up area. And so, taking away residential units to make spaces for cars sort of, I think, tips that balance sometimes for developers because they’re not getting that return when they’re building spaces for cars. So, we know that we have a housing crisis. We talk about it.

We know that we need more residential housing in the city, and we know that our city is growing. Incredibly, quickly. And so, I think this is just, again, as others have said, a first step that we need to take. I want to address the issue of parking in general and how Londoners seem to be so against on street parking in their neighborhoods.

Roads are built for cars. And I know we often hear as counselors, people complaining when they don’t see enough people using cycling lanes, and therefore, they don’t think that there’s justification to build cycling lanes. Or we even heard a comment tonight, I see empty buses. Of course, there are peak times on buses and less use at other times.

Often, what happens when there is an empty buses, especially if you’re seeing around the university, a big load of people was just dropped off. And of course, that bus is empty until it continues on its route again. However, if roads are built for cars, then they’re also designed, for the most part, to take on street parking. And with the city growing at the rate that it does, I also think the city staff need to start looking at the idea of allowing overnight parking, perhaps as a permit system, the way it happens in very dense residential neighborhoods in Toronto.

When I lived in Toronto in the ’90s, I lived in a house that was broken down into apartments. And there was no parking at that site. So we purchased parking passes from the city that allowed us to park on the streets in our neighborhood. I think that is the way that London is going to eventually go, because we’re seeing such intense growth coming here.

And I think people need to get over the fact that somebody’s parking on their streets. It’s not just built to sit empty at all hours of the day and night. It’s, we have to use our streets in an efficient manner. And sometimes that includes parking.

I also want to talk about the complaint that is often heard about there not being parking in downtown London. We do have a report, many reports that have been put together by city staff that actually show where the parking exists in downtown London, broken down into zones. And it shows how much of that parking is used. There is plenty of parking in downtown London.

Again, as somebody who lived in Toronto for about 10 years, what Londoners don’t like to do is walk a few blocks after they’ve parked their car. And unfortunately, in a large and growing city, that is what is accepted and expected and normal. So again, this is going to take some learning on the part of Londoners as we grow and we have to make changes and we have to adapt to accommodate that growth. Transit is another situation that we will continue to see improvements there as this growth and development takes place along the transit lines that will encourage, again, improvements to transit.

We’re going to see those rapid transit lines come into play. We’re going to see people accessing those lines as the residential development occurs and that’s going to spur us to continue to improve the transit system in London. So again, I do agree with Councillor Turner that we can go further, we should go further. I know that we will go further, but this is what we have before us today and I’m supportive of it.

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor. I will now go to Councillor Van Holst. I see your hand raised.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’ll make a couple of comments. First, regarding the, regarding parking provided by the developers and residences, they do charge for that parking many times. So I know that people who have parking under those, under those buildings often have to pay.

I have friends who do so. So that is, that is also a money generator. My concern, and I think this gets to one of the comments that Councillor Pfeiffer made is that things are changing, things are developing. We’re thinking along the lines that we did when we were first talking about the BRT and how great that would be.

But I would say post-pandemic, if there is ever a post-pandemic, that people are maybe less likely to want to drive, take our buses and use the mass transit. So we may see people just out of concern or fear using more cars. I know that just looking at the screen, we’ve got concerts with masks on spread apart. And there’s that, as for those same concerns that we might see mass transit weakening.

And it was already somewhat weak in London. Councillor, if I can have a focus on the parking standards with you. So there we are. Yes, well, I would say we want to lower, if we’re trying to lower parking standards in order to, in some places, force people into buses, then that may turn out to be a mistake.

So the, I mean, ideologically too, I think we’re here to serve the public and make sure that we provide them what they want. And so I disagree a little bit with the comments about, we need to make more drastic moves in order to force a situation about cars. I’ll be interesting to see how that evolves, how electric vehicles evolve, how the self-driving vehicles evolve. So I’ve an approach that is more moderate, I think is good because we can’t really see into the future.

And so taking those smaller steps is a good idea for those reasons. So I think those are my comments. Generally, I do have one more specific question. It’s about duplexes.

And I noticed that we’ve got a minimum parking requirement of 0.5 per unit. And I wonder what was the, that means one person is gonna have a parking spot and another person will not in those kinds of situations. What was the rationale behind that? If I can go to staff on the rationale around the duplex being at 0.5.

Thank you, true to chair. The consideration for that specific use, the duplex was to roughly by half decrease the existing minimum parking standard, which is one parking space similar to, for example, for duplexes or forplexes. This is based on best practices and other municipalities, scientific research, as well as the ITE page, which I mentioned earlier. Thank you.

Okay. One other thing I point out is that sometimes parking spots or that aren’t used, I’ve seen neighbors share or even rent out parking spaces, but certainly share them. There’s sometimes people will have a parking space, no longer drive. And then one of their neighbors will say, “I’m in very much need of a parking space.” There are places in my ward where the homes don’t have a parking space.

There’s no driveway and we don’t allow them to put something on the front yard. So they’re forced to park someplace else. And this making arrangements to park on the street can be expensive for boulevard agreements, those kinds of things. So I do see other uses for, I don’t see as parking in some places as much a waste of space as some people do.

So I think those will be my comments, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments? Oh, yes, Councillor Turner.

Sorry about that. I know you had your hand up there a while ago. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick comments and I don’t mean to prolong this.

It’s Councillor Layton and I will have amicable disagreements on the market. The market’s not benevolent and it’s not gonna do what’s in the public interest. It’s gonna do what it’s in its own interest. And when it does the public interest, it’s because it’s in its own interest.

So that’s why governments here is to make sure that the public interest is maintained. And that’s why we get to debate these things here at this council chamber. I do have a quick question in this. We talked a little bit about parking maximums and it says here, parking maximums have a larger potential impact for local businesses as they would mandate a maximum amount or a ceiling for the amount of parking provided on site.

It goes further to say without reliable parking data, there is no clear direction of what an appropriate parking maximum would be. Are there any plans or designs to try and collect that data and what would be involved in doing so three amount of chair staff? Plans on collecting data to staff. Through the chair, we don’t have anything specifically planned for that.

Again, it would be part of the rethinking zoning review and the methodology for how to collect that and develop recommendations will be determined through the process. Councillor. Okay, thanks. So I would strongly recommend that that be consideration for these next steps.

Again, my concern and why I’m not able to support this is there’s far too much nebulous kind of left to chance piece in here that hasn’t been designated or planned out from this point forward. So it sounds like this is what’s being put forward in front of us. There’s not a next step to it. It is a first step, but I don’t know what the next step is and it’s not clear what that is.

So without that certainty or at least a roadmap for it, I think this isn’t finished and it needs to be rounded out a little bit more. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner. And if the committee will allow me, I’ll make some brief comments.

Really want to thank staff for the work that they’ve done in reviewing the standards. I found the survey quite interesting. I know we are making some significant changes here, but what I have found quite interesting with our conversation here this evening and really appreciate the public’s comments as well, is that we all know we need to do more. And as much as this is the first step, I, you know, we’re all sort of agreeing with each other, which makes me pause.

This is, I’ve been back and forth on this one for quite a while and I’m, you know, I can go either way. But I’m really pleasantly surprised that we all know we should be doing more here. I know this is going to be a conversation most likely at council as well. But as much as I appreciate the work that we’re going to be doing through the rethink zoning, which we’re going to need to do more work there.

We’re going to need to do some work in the mobility plan. All those opportunities exist. But I think the bigger question that we have to address is the population of the city of London is growing. We are a large municipality.

I think we need to do things differently. We need to be a little bit more innovative. I would support a referral going back in particular, looking at electrification and really looking at a citywide approach. I can see that there probably won’t be support for that committee.

And like I said, there’ll be a conversation to be added. A council that I think we all agree that we need to do more when it comes to parking in our city. And with that, I won’t be supporting the application but looking forward to a council debate. So with that, I’ll see no further comments if we can proceed to vote.

So in the vote, the motion carries three to two. And before we go to the next item, which is the 3.7 on 2.00 and 9.1, Cliff Road South. I wonder if I could go to committee members if you’d like to take a break here. If we started at four, we could go, it’s almost seven.

We can come back about five to seven, 7.15. I’ll just sort of look and see where in agreement, it looks like we are in agreement. Clerk, do we need to take a vote? OK, so if we can take a hand vote to recess till 7.15, it would be about 20 minutes, 7.15.

I just want to make sure the public is aware that we will be back at 7.15. And with that, we’ve got a vote. Motion carries. OK, see you at 7.15.

Good evening, everyone. And welcome back to the Planning and Environment Committee. I know we are missing one committee member, but we will proceed going forward here with— let me see. This is a 3.7, which is a public participation meeting.

For 2009, one Cliff Road South, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries. And with that, I would like to miss Bessato.

She is the planner on this file with a staff presentation. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone.

The presentation for this application can be found starting on page 463 of the agenda. This is for an official plan and zoning by-law amendment application pertaining to the property located at 2009 one Cliff Road South. The subject site is comprised of a lot located at the northwest corner of the intersection of one Cliff Road South and Savoy Street. It currently contains a single-detached dwelling.

The requested amendments are to facilitate the development of a six-story 45-unit apartment building, as shown on slide 3, page 424 of the agenda. The applicant is also seeking a bonus zone to implement the proposed development. The bonus zone will permit a mixed-use commercial office residential apartment building for the maximum gross floor area of 372 square meters of commercial office uses, limited to the first floor, and a maximum height of six stories, measuring up to 22.5 meters, and a maximum mixed-use density of 176 units per hectare with 62 parking spaces. The implementation of the bonus zone is in exchange for facilities and services, as proposed by the applicant, specifically, the affordable housing component within the development would include a total of three one-bedroom residential units with rents not exceeding 80% of the average market rent for a 50-year time period.

An amendment to the swap is also necessary to permit the overall mixed-use density of 176 units per hectare. Slide 4 on page 425 of the agenda shows the proposed elevation of the six-story 45-unit apartment building. The building is oriented to the Wharncliffe and Savoy intersection, proposed development will be accessed by a driveway off of Savoy Street, with 50 parking spaces provided underground, and 12-surface parking spaces. From a policy context, the subject lands are located within the neighborhood’s place type at the intersection of a civic boulevard and a neighborhood connector.

Permitted uses within the neighborhood’s place type permit the low-rise apartment use. The subject site is located within the southwest area’s secondary plan, specific to the Boston neighborhood. The lands are designated meeting density, and uses include low-rise apartment buildings at a maximum height of six stories. An amendment to the swap is required in order to permit the proposed density.

Policies overall, though, for both plants support the requested amendments. As such, staff are recommending approval to rezone the subject lands from an urban reserve zone to a residential R9 special provision bonus zone, as well as a recommendation to amend the southwest secondary plan by adding a special policy within the Boston neighborhood to permit a mixed use density of 176 units per hectare. The recommended amendment will facilitate the development of an underutilized site within the built area boundary with a land use, intensity, and form that is appropriate for the site through the use of bonus zoning. I’m available for any questions.

Thank you. Any technical questions from committee members? I see none. I do have a quick technical question.

Ms. Pissado, I guess it relates to the access on to Sephoy. We’re still going through the site plan process to determine exactly where that’s going to be. Is that going to change?

Or if it could just give a little bit more clarification? Sure, through you, Madam Chair, this application will be required to go through site plans, so certainly that will be further refined through that process. Although, for the most part, with bonus zoning, the site concept that has been provided and is being attached to schedule one is generally going to be used for the next stage of the site plan. So I think in terms of the location of the access, it may ultimately change a little bit, but I think it’ll possibly be refined, but ultimately, I think that the actual location of it will probably stay relatively fixed.

OK, thank you for that clarification. I would like to now go to the applicant if the applicant is here. Good evening, Madam Chair. My name’s Dave Hennem.

I’m the senior associate with Zalinka Priyama in the planning consultants for this particular project. I haven’t prepared a formal visual presentation tonight. Nancy did an excellent job with surmising the project. I would like to briefly speak on some aspects of the proposed development.

We’ve had an opportunity to review planning staff’s report and the proposed by-law, and we’re pleased that they’re recommending that the planning committee approve the applications. Since March of 2021, we’ve worked diligently in collaboratively with city staff, who, you know, must say have done an excellent job for us, to get to a point where the current iteration is supportable, and which includes a robust package of public benefits, including quality building design, underground parking, commercial uses at grade, and affordable housing as well. As Nancy alluded to, from a policy viewpoint, the proposal is supported by all levels of current land use policy, which encourages mixed use development and location such as this set, and a form in heightened density as being proposed. It’s our view that the development is compatible with the existing and emerging mixed use context to the surrounding area.

We know there hasn’t been any material objections from the public with respect to this latest iteration. Overall, our professional opinion is that the proposed development is appropriate and desirable for the subject lands that will be to contribute to the creation of a complete walkable community and represent sound land use planning principles. As such, we would respectfully request that the committee members endorse staff’s recommendation and move the application forward to Council for approval on August the 2nd. That concludes my remarks.

Thanks for your consideration. And I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Hannah, for being here.

And just before I go to the public, I do see that Dr. Chester is here, and I would like to let Dr. Chester know that I think you’re here for 3.3, which is the Future to Slave Chapel, which was dealt earlier on in the meeting. And it was approved.

I just want to let you know that right now. And I will now go to the public for this recommendation on a zoning application for 2009. One clip for itself, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the application, please come forward. And I’ll ask one more time.

If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this zoning application, please come forward. I see and hear none. So I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Layman, second by Councillor Lewis. And we can proceed to vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Would like to go to committee. And I wonder if I could go to the vice chair, just to make comments. This is an application in my ward if the committee doesn’t mind.

And I will lease the chair to vice chair, Councillor Layman. Okay, you have the floor. Yeah, thank you very much. And just want to give my thanks to staff and to the applicant.

I know this has been a long time coming forward. And I want to thank the applicant for working with city staff on this application. I do have a quick question around, you know, with these infills, there’s always a concern how we move around. And the need in this area is becoming greater.

As you can see, it’s on one Cliff Road, self-right, coming right into the Lambeth community. And throughout the years, there has been this conversation about a need as we develop in this area for traffic lights. And I wonder if I can go to staff if there’s someone here that just can speak to where we are with the traffic lights in this area. Thank you and to you, to the chair.

So when we make decisions on minor ward works like street lights and traffic lights, we base that on warrant. So the challenge we have is that when we do our GC studies, we’re trying to anticipate the need based on the projected growth in a particular area and based on the existing applications at that time. One of the things that we don’t necessarily have really great information on is the pace of the business plan by the individual developers in the area. So it could be that an area built out faster or slower than some of those projections that we have in the GC study.

So the DC Act and then our own local DC bylaw helped to manage some of the expectations and try to ensure that some of these, some of the infrastructure improvements are affordable. And I’m aware that our transportation staff are also exploring ways to be a little bit more responsive to these items at the time. And working within our minor road works programs within the DC. That was for all of us.

Yeah, thank you for that information. I think it’s really important that we convey the concerns to the community on how the process works with traffic. Traffic lights, we know they’re coming, we know development is coming. And one of the biggest challenges I have as a Councillor and Lord Nine is how we move around.

And with all this development, and we know it’s only going to get worse, we need to sort of review how we do look at traffic lights coming into the area. I would like to make my comments now just because I am supportive of this application. Like I said, many thanks to the applicant who has worked with staff on this, the affordable housing piece, the three one bedrooms as well as an underutilized empty lot. And at an intersection and on Mourncliffe Road, this is an area that is an entrance into Lambeth and it’s really good to see some development, some intensification coming into this area.

I am supportive having said that concerns around how we move around continue. And I would encourage staff how we look at, through transportation, how we look at traffic lights, but be something that, and through our DCs, that maybe we need some further ways of dealing with it. And with that, those are my comments. And I’ll turn the chair back to you chair.

And as of now, nobody’s on the speaker’s list. Thank you, Councillor Layman. And with that, I’ll go to committee for a motion for comments. Councillor Layman.

I’ll move the staff recommendation. And it is second by Councillor Turner. Any further comments? You see none, we can proceed to vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And moving on and now to point eight, which is a public participation meeting for 3510-3524. Colonel Talbot Road, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Layman.

Proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And then there is a staff presentation. I’ll go to Ms.

Visato. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening. The presentation for this application can also be found starting on page 463 of the agenda.

This is a zoning by-law amendment application pertaining to the properties, meaningably addressed as 3510 and 3524 Colonel Talbot Road. The subject side is comprised of two lots located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Colonel Talbot Road and Pack Road. The site currently consists of two single attached residential dwellings and then attached to accessory structure that would be demolished and removed. The request in amendment is to facilitate the development of a four-story mixed-to-use apartment building with 37 residential units and 434 square meters of commercial office space on the ground floor with a total of 60 parking spaces to be provided through surface parking and a mixed-to-use density of 87 units per hectare as shown on slide three, page 465 of the agenda.

The applicant is also seeking a zoning by-law amendment to permit the proposed apartment building with additional commercial and office uses related to the first floor, a reduced minimum front and exterior side yard depth of one meter, a density of 87 units per hectare and 60 parking spaces. Slide four on page 466 of the agenda shows the proposed elevation of the four-story apartment building. The building is oriented to the pack and Colonel Talbot Road intersections. The road’s development will be accessed by a driveway off of Pack Road and Colonel Talbot Road and additional setback for the parking along the south property line of three meters is also being recommended in order to preserve the critical root zones for several boundary trees.

From a policy context, the subject lands are located within the neighborhood’s place type at the intersection of two civic boulevards. The permitted uses within the neighborhood’s place type at this location include a range of low-rise residential uses, including low-rise apartments and a maximum height of four stories. The subject site is also located within the Southwest Area Secondary Plan specific to the North Lambeth residential neighborhood. The lands are designated medium density residential and uses include low-rise apartment buildings and a maximum height of four stories.

Policies within the plans generally support the requested amendments. Staff received comments from the public with respect to this application and concerns have been raised with respect to privacy, construction impacts, traffic, noise, impact on property values, environmental impacts, grading and storm water. Stage one and two archaeological assessment was done for the subject lands. However, the Ministry Sign-Up letter has not yet been received.

So in order to advance the application, a holding provision is being added to ensure no site disturbance until all documents have been provided. As such, staff is now recommending approval to resolve the subject lands from an urban reserve zone to a holding residential R8 special provision zone. The recommended amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement, conforms to the London Plan, and is consistent with the policies of the Southwest Area Plan. I’m available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Bissato. Any technical questions? See none, I will now go to the applicant.

I wonder if the applicant is here or the agent for the applicant? Didn’t hear me now. Yes, if you can let us know who you are. I can’t see you, but if you can let us know who you are.

Oh, I’m sorry. That’s not from my side. Oh, my apologies, you’re here. Yeah, we are here in person today.

My name is— And you’ve got five minutes, welcome, sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Nick Dajak. I’m with Strik Baldini-Monez, representing a number company here today as the planner and agent.

We believe this application is a great application that represents sound and land use planning. We have worked with the city to accommodate a number of revisions. This application has gone in front of Urban Design peer review panel and was well received. So generally what we’ve done is we’ve made a couple revisions to the application to improve the site plan.

We’ve pulled the building away from a budding property limits, added a new walkway connection to the public site walk. We’ve also increased the landscape trip, as Ms. Pissato mentioned. Some of those recommendations came directly from Ms.

Pissato, so I think that the planning process has worked successfully here to improve the site plan application or the site plan design for the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application. So I just want to thank Ms. Pissato for the presentation and her efforts to make this application what it is today. And to say that we support the recommendations of the report.

And thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Daug for being here. And I’ll have to learn to keep my head up, not down.

I would like to move on and now to the public if there’s any comments from the public. If they would like to come forward, stating your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes, welcome. Hello, how can you hear me? Good.

Hello, my name is Glenn Dietz and I live at 3559 Loyalist Court. So my property is immediately offset the property in question on the opposite side of Pack Road. I have two types of concerns about the application for Zoning Bylaw’s change. And the first one, and the most important one is related to the traffic.

With the number of properties or housing units, the businesses and so forth, the number of parking spots, there’ll be a great number of additional traffic entering and nexting the property. And I’m concerned about cross traffic hazards, road hazards, collisions that will result from it. The according to the plot plan that was circulated, it looks like they’re looking to have both left turn access as well as right turn access into it. And that will, there’s a single lane going north, a single lane going south.

That’s going to create cross traffic hazards. The property across the street, a gas station, also exits have exactly the same spot that this property will have a good deal of traffic. And so there’s going to be a great deal of congestion and the interruption of traffic flow. So the same thing happens on Pack Road.

There’s also, with the traffic lights, there’s a good deal of backup traffic during peak hours. And with the people living at that address, trying to get in and out, and people trying to use those businesses, there will be a great deal of interruption of traffic and an increased chance of collisions and personal injury. The way that the planning process works, each developer brings forward a single application. So we have no way of knowing how much additional traffic that there’s going to be that’s going to require access from Colonel Talbot Road down the road from this development.

We do know that there’s going to be hundreds of new houses that will be built in the subdivisions. And so the traffic is going to be much higher than it currently is. And so adding to the traffic congestion is not something that we should look at. My second type of concerns has to do with the density, asking to exceed the current bylaws for density, by increasing the number of units.

I think that’s a bad precedent. This is one of the first developments that is challenging, that there’s looking at bylaw amendments. And if this developer is given that opportunity to install more housing units, more parking spots, then that’s going to be used as a precedent for other developers. And it’ll be hard to say no to those.

So I’m hoping that you do not make that approval. Thank you. Thank you. And I’d like to go to the public again.

Welcome, if you can state your name, address if you wish, and you have up to five minutes. I’m Scott Miller and I’m at 3534, Colonel Talbot Road. I have similar concerns with traffic as well. Traffic control plan set out.

That’s a no left turn off of Colonel Talbot Road, living directly below it. It’s really difficult to access my property as well as the gas station across the street already makes it difficult. I think traffic is definitely a concern of mine as well. You know, most of my access is from southbound, from the city coming to my house.

And I have not much other access to get through it from anywhere else. So the no left turn sign is definitely a big issue. As well, there’s been no grading plan put forward. I’m concerned about the runoff in the area.

We have a large ditch and it doesn’t seem to be accounted for any of the elevations or any other drawings as well. And the tree plan as well as I believe has errors in the western portion, southwestern portion, with three trees that are say to be removed that are not on the site on my house. And any further comments? Nope, that’s it.

Thank you. Thanks. And I’ll ask again from the public, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application? So I wasn’t going to comment on this file.

If I could just give your name, I guess you wish, and you have up to five minutes. My name is Anna Maria Velastro. I wasn’t going to comment on this file. And I could actually be wrong about this, but there is an ESA in the neighborhood and there is Diem Creek.

And I haven’t heard anything from the planner about how they’re going to dream, any kind of low impact development techniques that are going to be incorporated into this development, how it’s going to impact the creek and the ebbs and flows of that creek, which are ecologically significant. I didn’t hear anything from the planner about how they’re going to deal with light pollution that impacts the ESA. And it’s within that vicinity. And I’m just noting it because these complaints and these issues are repetitive, the planning staff, maybe they can address it.

I just don’t hear it when they talk about this application. And these are top of my core values for a lot of people to protect the ZSA’s. Thank you. If there’s someone else in the gallery or online that would like to make a comment, please state your name, address, if you wish.

I do see someone on Frank’s iPad, are you here to speak to this application, which is the one on Colonel Talbot? Okay. I just would ask you just put your video off if you don’t mind until the item comes up. Thank you.

And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation. We see none, so I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis, and we can proceed to vote. Was in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. A number of questions from the public.

And I know traffic is a big issue, but the traffic, more or less, how it enters and exits this property, I think, is a concern on how the laneways meet up or the exits or entrance and exit line up with the development across the street on Colonel Talbot, and also Pack Road and how the left-hand turns would work if we can start with that. I just wonder if I can go to staff or any comments. Through you, Madam Chair. Sorry, somebody from transportation is available.

I wonder if we can go to those issues. Thank you. If I can go to transportation? Good evening, Madam Chair.

This is the Transportation Technologies with City. I would like to bring everyone’s attention to the coming growth project along Colonel Talbot in 2023, part of the growth project. Overall access management will be reviewed and as necessary for overall area, intersection will be put in place. Under the interim condition, we will be asking to have right-in, right-out port job island from 3510 to eliminate public concern related to traffic and left-hand movements.

And would that be done through the site plan process that you will be looking into that? And I’m just trying to see how the public will be informed about that given their concerns or how that would work? Yes, that would be considered part of the site plan application. For the public engagement, I think I would like someone from planning to speak about that how we can update residents.

Through you, Madam Chair, the site plan process generally is not a public process, as you know, but obviously if that is a comment that’s being made tonight, then in terms of the site plan moving forward, then obviously there’ll be restrictions with respect to that access point on Colonel Talbot and we would expect to continue to see that into the site plan. Okay, thank you. So these comments today will be taking into consideration as we go through the site plan process. Sure, sorry, through you, Madam Chair, you can also potentially, if Council wishes to add, you know, direction to the approval authority for site plan to address those specific concerns, I can also be potentially added to the recommendation clause.

Thank you. And just to follow up on other concerns from the community, when it relates to the density, the grading plan, I would assume would be part of that site plan process, but if you could speak to the, how we came up with the density, the protection of trees to that west side of the property. And I know, I’m familiar with this area, but I do know that the Dingling Creek is further west and I know there’s lots of lighting in this area already with all the development that’s going on, but if you could speak to the concerns around light pollution and the ESA. Through you, Madam Chair.

So I’ll deal with the first question was about the increase flow of rather the comment about the increase in density in units. So as you know, the London Plan permits building forms or rather it gets away from the whole density consideration, which is something that I think we will be moving towards. The Southwest Area Plan obviously lags a little bit behind and still use density considerations. But overall, as I mentioned, this particular development fits within the policy framework for both plans in terms of the increase in density.

It’s important to note as well that this is a mixed use density of 87 units per hectare, which takes into consideration the commercial units. So for every 100 square meters, for instance, a commercial you add what’s considered a unit as part of your density consideration. So really the density is actually lower when it comes to a residential perspective, but that 87 units per hectare is really what’s being achieved here, but as I mentioned, still in terms of a form and type that is still four square within the policies of the London Plan and the Southwest Area Plan. The question about grading.

So grading is typically addressed at site plan and will be addressed. Obviously one of the considerations for grading is that no stormwater will be contained on the site or addressed on the site. So that is something that will have to be done through the site plan process and will be addressed with the engineering team as well. In terms of the tree, the landscape plan, apparently there are errors on the noting there will be removal.

Obviously there will be no tree removal on trees that are not on this property. So if there is anything to that effect, it will be also addressed through the site plan process. Whether that means a slight revision to the landscape plan or what have you. As we also mentioned, there are some trees that are right along the property edge along the southern edge.

And we are requiring a three meter parking lot setback which will help to alleviate some of those critical root zone issues that potentially could result in some effects to those trees. So we’re also incorporating that into the ultimate zone. And then the questions about the ESA. It’s the ESA is not within the trigger distance for this application.

So therefore our ecological, this was circulated to our ecology people. They had no comment on this application and did not see the need for an ecological study because of the, it is not as I mentioned within the trigger distance. And in terms of light pollution, et cetera, light standards that we are moving to from what I understand through site plan, all are supposed to be directionally down so they no longer provide light spillage onto other sites and onto neighboring properties and ultimately into nearby environmental areas. For instance, so I know we are working towards that and I think through site plan that will also be addressed and incorporated into the ultimate site plan.

And I think that was everything. Thank you. I’ll go to committee, any comments? I see, no, no, I wonder if I can hand the chair over to Vice Chair, Councillor Layman, since this is in my ward.

Councillor Hawkins. Thank you very much. And I wanna thank the public, everyone for coming out. And again, how we move around, always a challenge out in ward nine.

As we know, we can develop, this is an urban reserve area which is allowed to develop. And it is an area, in fact, it’s kind of not high intensity at all. When you look at 87 units per hectare, it is low. I know it’s got that commercial element in there.

It’s right at that intersection of Park Road and Colonel Talbot, where a number of years ago, we knew that development was coming in and the challenges of getting even a traffic light. We just got a traffic light about a year ago. I can’t even imagine not having a traffic light at this intersection, knowing all the development that’s going on. It is really important how we move along Colonel Talbot.

We are going to be having road improvements along Colonel Talbot. But I really wanna address the concern that the public made about reviewing the entrance onto Colonel Talbot and how the entrances or the exits are aligned. And I am going to hope that the committee will support a review of that entrance to the site plan process. I would like to make that amendment in the recommendation.

Not sure how we can put it in. Be happy to look for some suggestions, but maybe it being noted and adding it to the end of that. I think it’s really important. Again, how we move around is really important.

You can see the amount of parking spots that are gonna be in this development as well. It is one of the few opportunities that we have to move around out in this area. And I know for me as the board counselor, it is the number one concern that I have from residents. As we know, all this development is gonna be happening.

We need to be able to move around in a safe manner. And we need opportunities to do that. But we also need to develop. We also need to put in housing.

This is a space that is under a review for development. And not so high in intensity. So I am supporting it. I appreciate the fact that we’ve got that three meter buffering around the trees.

There are a number of wonderful trees on this property. So those sufficient setbacks are really important to protect some of these trees, but also for tree plantings as well. It is a mixed use. And I’m glad to hear that there is the holding provision.

Because this is an area that has a lot of history to it as well. So it is important that when we do develop, we do have regard for everything. So I will look to the committee. Those are my comments and looking for some support for additional reviews on the entrance, on to the Colonel Talbot or whatever it is.

So Counselor, do you have wording for that amendment? I don’t have the wording other than if we can review the both Colonel Talbot and maybe Pat Rhodes since they’re both arterial roads that they look at the left hand turns that are allowed into and out of this property. Would you like reference to the site plan in that amendment? Yes, as they go through the site plan process.

I think it’s worth noting that. Okay, Counselor Turner. Just for clarity, you’re looking to add like a clause 16 and 17 to the issues raised for the application process to consider by the site plan approval authority. So you’re looking to add those two items into that list in the recommendation, sir.

Yes, so that would be number 17 then. Okay, I’ll look to the committee for a second or to that amendment, Counselor Turner. Any discussion on that amendment, Counselor Turner? Yeah, I think it’s appropriate for consideration through that.

It allows saying that Council has heard community concerns would like those considered through it. It may not have the resolution that’s being sought, but it gets a closer and deeper dive into it. And I think as that opportunity to perhaps resolve some of those issues in a chance. So, Counselor, I’ll call the vote and then turn the chair back to you if that’s okay.

We’ll call the vote on that amendment. You know, I think if we can maybe tighten it up for Council a little bit, I know I just would like to make sure that the whole entrance onto and the access are looked at both on both those votes that they align and people are allowed to move evenly. I’m fine with it for now. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Good bill, sir. Thank you, Vice Chair Layman. I will, do we need to vote on the full motion then?

Okay, and if I can just make a few comments, I’m very supportive of the application moving forward with the noted amendment to look at how we move into onto an office property. And with that, we can proceed to vote. Or are there any further comments? Sorry, I see none, so we can proceed to vote.

I just wanna go to the clerk. I don’t see my vote up on here. It sort of disappeared, but I do vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

On now to the next item, which is a 3.9, a public participation meeting for 672 Hamilton Road, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Layman. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And this is a request for demolition for heritage site.

I wonder if we can have just a quick verbal on this one. Welcome, Michael Pughal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll provide just a brief verbal presentation here.

This report was prepared in response to a demolition request by the Diocese of London for the dwelling on the heritage-listed property at 672 Hamilton Road. The property is located on the north side of Hamilton Road between Price Street and Elm Street, and it’s the corner property at the northwest intersection of Hamilton Road and Elm Street. The dwelling that is the subject of the demolition request is a two-frame dwelling with a gambrel roof designed in the Dutch colonial style. This is an architectural style that is commonly found in London and elsewhere in the late 19th century, but more even more commonly in the early 20th century.

One of the defining characteristics of this style is that high gambrel roof that you can see in the photographs. I notice of intention to demolish the dwelling and the rear additions and structures on the property along with a heritage impact assessment was received as complete on June 24th, 2022. And in terms of process and timelines, municipal council must respond to that demolition request within 60 days and must either consent to the demolition or designate the property of percent to the Ontario Heritage Act and therefore refusing the demolition. So for this timeline and application, the decision is required by August 23rd, 2022 as a part of the Heritage Impact Assessment and evaluation according to the criteria of Ontario Regulation 906.

That’s the criteria for determining cultural heritage value. This was applied and completed by the applicant’s heritage consultant. The evaluation determined that the property did not meet the criteria for designation and staff do not disagree with the evaluation of the property and have therefore determined that the property does not merit designation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. The Community Advisory Committee on Planning was consulted at their meeting on July 13th, 2022.

And so by way of a conclusion, staff agree with the conclusions of the Heritage Impact Assessment that found that the subject property does not merit designation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. The staff recommendation is to consent to the demolition and to remove the property from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources. Just an important note as well, for heritage-listed properties, as we saw earlier this evening, terms and conditions cannot be applied to an approval for demolition. But I’ll note that the owners are encouraged to consider salvage of building elements prior to the demolition for things like the decorative details and carved woodwork potential elements for reuse.

And I’d be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Any technical questions? I see none.

I will go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application. Ask again, if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to the recommendation in front of us. Hi, it’s Maria again. Yes.

And it’s Catholic Women’s League from Holy Cross Parish. Yeah. If you can, you have up to five minutes and welcome. Okay, no, I’ll just be really brief.

This parking lot is so important to this parish and ends in the neighbourhood as well. ‘Cause as you know, Hamilton Road and Trafalgar are both roads with extremely high traffic numbers. And Elm Street is a very narrow street. So we do not have anywhere to park when we attend masks throughout the week or the weekends.

It’s vital for us to get this parking spot. And this house is really, there’s nothing, I don’t wanna say important about it. There’s no reason to keep the building up. It has deteriorated substantially by with the previous owner, and so we would appreciate if we could get this demolition going so that we can get our parking lot there.

Thank you. Thank you. You’d like to ask again, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, please come forward. With that, I’ll go to the committee to close the public participation need.

We’re still in the middle of the public meeting, but yes, go ahead. Sorry, regarding the comments from the last presenter, Maria from the Catholic Women’s League. Because I know that this is adjacent to Elm Street, where a school closure, actually we dealt with earlier the application. So I’m just wondering if before we close the public participation meeting, I can ask Maria, if the closure of the school and the subsequent redevelopment there, I know that often Catholic schools overflow for parish parking is accommodated in the school parking lot.

And I’m just wondering if the redevelopment of 18 Elm Street has impacted the availability of parking for their congregation. So it has impacted us. All of our parking was the school parking lot, which I believe in the previous discussion, said there was 48 spots and we will have 42, I think it is with the development and the removal of that home. But it also will impact as well that building, that if they need overflow of parking, I would suspect that they would use this slot right across the street.

And even during the construction of that building, the workers will not have anywhere to park because of heavy vehicles. As I mentioned, Elm Street is very narrow. And in the event of an emergency, we wouldn’t want cars blocking or impeding emergency vehicles from getting in and out of that street. Thank you for your answer.

And I would like to close the public participation meeting Councillor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Layman. Losing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And Councillor Vanholst, questions, comments from committee members.

I’ll go to Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’ve stayed through the meeting to speak to this item. And I want to encourage the committee to support it.

Thank you very much to Councillor Lewis for picking out the real issue here. Days gone by, the parish sold the school property to the school board for a dollar. And that allowed them to still retain some important parking, but with the new development, which is, as we said, a wonderful addition to the neighborhood, that parking will no longer be available. So this is very much needed, I very much needed for the community as well, along Hamilton Road, there’s a demand for parking.

And we even have in the community improvement plan and in one of our reserve funds, money to purchase buildings along Hamilton Road for demolition and recreation of parking. So this will be a big assistance certainly to the parish. And then as Maria pointed out to the community at large during the time when church is not in the, in regards to the heritage, I believe this is one of a number of heritage properties that were put on the list. And unfortunately, it came as an added to the agenda earlier this term, and there wasn’t an opportunity for many community members to come and speak about that.

But back when we did the community improvement plan, there was a vote in public engagement. It was very clear that Hamilton Road was prioritizing development, as opposed to, say, becoming a heritage district, because that urban regeneration is very important. And this will be an important part of that. And wherever we can get parking, it’s important.

So this being one of the properties that’s, that’s not a beautiful, well-maintained one. And we have many of those. I think it’s very appropriate that we follow the staff’s recommendation and allow this to go forth. It’s gonna make a big difference to us on Hamilton Road.

And certainly to the parish, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Van Halse for your comments. Committee, looking for a motion, comments. Councillor Lewis.

I’ll move the staff recommendation. And Councillor Layman’s second motion. As you know, further comments, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

And we are our last public participation meeting for the evening, which is 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Ms.

Wise here for a staff presentation. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin, there are presentation slides available on page 661 of the agenda package.

So this application is for mixed-use developments comprised of three buildings with five high-rise towers, the pipes between 10 and 27 stories and ground floor commercial and office uses at 1067 to 1071 Wellington Road. Slide one on page 662 shows the subject site, which is located in the south end of the city, north of the way out small, with frontages on Wellington Road, Bradley Avenue and Montgomery Road. The site is currently used for commercial uses in surface parking, which is considered to be underutilized and an opportunity site for intensification. Slide two on page 663 shows the proposed development from the Wellington Road frontage and towers A, B and E, which are all 27 stories.

There are a total of 1,272 residential units, 1,375 parking spaces, 2,610 square meters of ground floor office and retail space and an overall density of 566 units per hectare proposed. Slide three on page 664 shows the proposal from Montgomery Road and all five towers. Tower C was reduced in height from 18 stories initially to 10 stories to provide a better transition to the adjacent low-rise neighborhood. And tower D in the middle has a height of 20 stories.

It is notable that from the Montgomery Road, this perspective shows the width of the towers, which displays a more slender angle of the buildings. Slide four on page 665 shows the site concept plan with the accesses from Wellington Road, Bradley Avenue and Montgomery Road, as well as the building placement and overall site layout. Slide five on page 666 provides an overview of the policy framework. There’s direction from the province to align intensity with transit and Wellington Road as a planned rapid transit corridor.

In the 1989 official plan, there is a site-specific policy in the auto-oriented commercial corridor designation that allows a broader range of uses, as well as high-rise residential uses through the permissions provided for in the community commercial designation and the multifamily high-density residential designation, which also allows for bonusing. The size has been the transit village place type in the London plan, which contemplates an intensive, mixed use and vibrant pedestrian-oriented environment with the pipes up to a maximum of 15 stories and up to 22 stories. Slide six on page 667 provides a high-level summary of the public comments received from the 24 respondents. There was a virtual community information meeting hosted by the applicants following the initial notice of application in late 2020.

Some of the concerns that have been raised include increased pressure on traffic and congestion, concern for school capacity, the need for affordable housing, impacts of shadowing, loss of privacy, impacts on property values, and more noise and nuisance from additional people. Slide seven on page 668 identifies some of the key issues related to build form and bonusing. So while there are many positive design features proposed, staff are recommending additional regulations to further refine the build form for this application. A regulation is recommended for a setback of three meters along Wellington Road after the sixth story to minimize the massing and provide more of a human-scale environment to at street level.

Additional regulations to promote slender towers without long accesses are recommended through a maximum tower floor plate of 1,050 square meters above the eighth story and a maximum width to length ratio of one to two. This is to minimize the massing, shadowing, visual impact, and obstruction of views of the towers through mitigation of their size. The last key issue relates to bonusing. So this site is an excellent candidate to provide affordable housing as part of the bonus zone.

A recommended 93 units for 10% of the lift with unit types reflective of the overall buildings at a rate of 80% of the average market rent for a period of 50 years is recommended. This is a consistent approach to bonusing city staff and the housing development corporation have taken for other similar projects and contributes to achieving council’s directions in the housing stability action plan and the goal of 3,000 units by 2026. Slide eight on page 669 is a recommendation summary. The proposed development is recommended for approval with the additional regulations and is consistent with provincial policy statements, conforms to the official plans, and is an appropriate development for an underutilized site within with direct access to higher order transit.

One final note, Madam Chair, is that there was an additional regulation required for a reduced rear yard set depth of 0.75 meters. This has been submitted to the clerk and is recommended by staff to implement the overall built form requested. So there is an amended by-law from staff that now includes this regulation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’d be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Any technical questions from committee? I see none.

I’d like to now go, yeah, hold on. We’ve got a technical question from Councillor Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, just for you. I believe we previously approved this application.

Now what’s coming to us as a site amendment to add additional height and densities, is that correct? Madam Chair, this application has not received any council decision. There was a notice of application that was originally submitted, which had a maximum height of 22 stories in certain locations. There have been revisions to the design.

So the request now is for 27 stories for some of the towers, but it has not yet gone to plenty committee. Okay, thank you. Any other technical questions? Say none.

I’d like to now go to the applicants agent, Mr. Campbell. Well, thank you, Madam Mayor. Before we begin, I’d just like to ask the committee if we can get 10 minutes to present our presentation this evening.

You know, the typical time allotted is five. I think the scale and significance of this application warrants some additional time. Okay, maybe before we start, I’ll go to committee. I wonder if we’d need a motion on this one to go up to 10 minutes.

I’ll go to committee members. Councillor Lewis. Certainly, Madam Chair. Well, I’m always hesitant to start adding additional time.

We just did this for Mr. Kirkness, one meeting cycle ago. If memory serves correctly, maybe it was two meeting cycles ago. So given the scale of the number of units in this, I’m am able to extending that up to 10 minutes.

Okay, so I’m looking for a secondary on this. Councillor Layman. Yeah, you know, the precedent has been set. And the last, the development up in my ward, the developer was given 10 minutes, so fair is fair.

And this is a major development, so I will second it. We do have a motion then, any other comments? I know I’ll just make a quick comment. I don’t think a president has been set on this application.

We’re here tonight to extend the public presentation from the applicant up to 10 minutes. So with that, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Mr.

Campbell, welcome. You have up to 10 minutes. Wonderful, thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee. My name is Matt Campbell.

I’m a senior planner with Zalinka Priemel. Along on the meeting with us this evening, we have Carrie O’Brien from Drulo Holdings. She’s representing the ownership group and the applicant for this development. And for the committee’s consideration, the ownership group for this proposed development is a partnership of established London developers, including Auburn developments and Drulo Holdings.

And you can see examples of their work throughout London and Southwestern Ontario. We’re extremely happy to be bringing forward this application in front of the committee. And I would like to take just a moment to express our thanks to staff. I know staff have been working very diligently on this application.

There’s been a lot of dialogue. And we certainly appreciate their efforts. So a big thank you to staff before we really get into it this evening. When we talk about this development, the term significant pops up.

And I’m going to suggest that we use a different term when talking about this particular development. This is going to be a transformative development. This goes beyond significant. This is one of the first major developments that is going to implement the city’s transit village place type.

And recall, this forms one of the key components for the recently approved and now enforcing the fact London plan. So we’re very excited to see this coming forward. Now, there have been a number of design revisions from the original application that was made. And those revisions were requested by city staff.

And we agree on the majority of those revisions. But there are a few items that we’ll get into a little bit later in my notes here that I would like to bring to the committee’s attention. And we do have a revised bylaw that I believe was circulated to planning committee members, which we’re hoping will be tabled this evening and can receive a decision. So Ms.

Wise identified that there’s the timeline of this application and just for committee’s consideration. This application has been going on since July of 2020. And the project as a whole has been going on for well over three years. We did have a community led, sorry, a developer led open house.

And that was in December of 2020. And there have been multiple meetings with city staff, design meetings, design surets, and quite a significant amount of discussion in regards to this developed. Most recently, there were urban design comments provided in December of 2021 with multiple meetings following that. And now before us, we have the application OPA and ZBA that was submitted in June 2022.

And just for the committee’s consideration, the official plan amendment is seeking additional height. And that’s as a result of requests from staff to lower the heights of some of the buildings, particularly in the northwest corner of the site, which interface with some of the residential lands beyond. So our client was happy to do that. And that’s resulted in the proposal that’s before you this evening.

So as I mentioned, this development is exactly what the transit village place types are really encouraging. And just as a reminder, the transit villages is really part of the hub and spoke model of the bus rapid transit that is going to be under construction in 2024. And it’s the second highest intensity area in the city. So this is going to be kind of a mini downtown.

And that’s why you see this application with such intensity. So this development is going to implement the planned function of the transit village, again, by concentrating density at a transit hub in a neighborhood that’s very well served by commercial and amenities. For instance, we have white oaks mall right across the street. And very importantly, this development is going to be one of the first major developments to really capitalize on the city’s investment in bus rapid transit.

So we have BRT, which is going to be getting underway in 2024. What the ownership group for this development would like to do is capitalize on those works and co-construct on or about the same time. So the city can deliver BRT. And our client can deliver this development.

Both of those two developments will work hand in hand in achieving the planned function and vision for this area. As Ms. Wise mentioned, we have five slender towers, nearly 1,300 attainable rental units. Now, these units aren’t to be luxury units, but rather they’re intended to be reasonably design cost effective only after a general rental market.

Now, we will talk about affordable housing. I would like to make note for the committee that the proposal that the developers propose is for 65 affordable housing units. And that’s slightly different than what staff are recommending. And there’s a good reason why that is, which we’ll get into in a minute.

The rest of the conditions are largely the same, 80% of AMR and a period of 30 years. This is a true mixed use development with the ground floor commercial retail office and something that we’re very, very excited to see. It’s going to implement a pedestrian oriented built form along Wellington and Bradley. And we believe that this is an appropriate interface with residential lands adjacent to the west.

As I mentioned, these buildings have been decreased in height in the northwest corner, and that increase coming up along Wellington and Bradley. And this is going to be a gateway development in the city of one. And anyone that’s coming in from London from the south, this is going to be a very, very noticeable development as one enters that location for the city. And also, the committee was talking about revised parking rates.

This is going to be a development where you truly don’t need a car. You have everything within a very short walking distance, which, again, is within the vision for the London plan. Now, as I mentioned, we did circulate a draft by-law. And again, we’re 90% of the way there.

We’ve been working with staff for quite a long time. We just need some slight tweaks. So if anyone is— any members of the committee doesn’t have that by-law, we’d be happy to circulate that out. I would like to know we would prefer this not with we’re back to staff this evening.

We would like a decision. And that’s so we can secure the affordable housing units under the by-law. This developer is committed to providing those affordable housing units. And it would be helpful to have that enshrined in a bonus zone.

So getting into the issues that we have with the staff recommendation, the largest issues, the reduced floor plate size and ratio, as Ms. Wise mentioned, and city staff are asking for a more slender building. Now, unfortunately, the policy in the London plan doesn’t make reference to any specific floor plate size, rather than only their slender. I think Ms.

Wise can use that term in her presentation as well. Now, what city staff are recommending here is the shortening of some of the buildings. And it’s about an average of 19 feet. Well, one may think 19 feet.

That’s not really a big deal, is it? The reality of the situation is 19 feet off of each building is a huge deal. Now, that 19 feet results in approximately 150 to 166 dwelling units that would never be constructed in this transit village. Now, to put that into consideration, that’s an entire additional apartment building or an entire sprawling subdivision.

And we kind of accommodate those units using that 19 feet in these towers. So we ask that the committee pay special attention to the regulation that’s dealing with the floor plate size. And again, referring back to the draft bylaw that was circulated. In our analysis, the length reduction of the building or the proposed building length, it has no meaningful impact to what someone would perceive on the street, nor any meaningful impact of shadows.

The floor plate sizes are also going to be subject to the site plan that is going to form part of the bonus zone. So reference can be made to that in the future as well. It doesn’t need to be regulated through site specific regulation in the bylaw itself, because we have it as part of the site plan. Mr.

Campbell, I just want to let you know you have one minute left. Thank you very much. I’ll try and be with Madam Chair. Affordable housing.

Now, we don’t disagree that we’re looking for 10% of the lift, 80% AMR. The issue is, where does that lift start? Now, this application is only being considered because of the policies of the London plan and based on our calculations. If we were to calculate the lift on the London plan, that’s only 36 units.

There’s no basis to consider uplift based on the policies of the 1989 plan, which is what staff are suggesting is appropriate here. We totally disagree with that. Now, 36 units is certainly less than is being proposed. Now, the reason behind that is because our client is trying to be generous with the city and meeting the city halfway.

And that’s why we’re proposing 65 units. So we had the 36 under the London plan policies. And our client is now proposing 65 affordable housing units. And these are going to be a mix of rental units.

And the whole development is going to affect the affordability for the entire area, again, with almost more. Mr. Campbell, you’ve come up to your 10 minutes. If you can please wrap up.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So we’re happy to answer any other questions on those items. There are a number of other small tweaks to the by-law, which if committee members have any questions on it, we can certainly address their mainly— Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Thank you. And with that, I would like to now go to the public for any comments from the public. I know we have a few members up in the gallery. I’ll start with the gallery, and then I’ll go online.

Welcome, if you can state your name, address if you wish, and you’ve got five minutes. Sylvia Brand, 717 Dun Elm Lane, which is on the east side of Wellington Road. So yeah, there is so much to say. You said two stories is equal to a sprawling subdivision.

So if we multiply two stories, or divide it, into 27, multiply it by your number of buildings, how many sprawling subdivisions are you putting in that small area, which has subdivisions that already exist? That is one thing. I can’t imagine it’s like dropping more than a small town into an existing area. I don’t have a problem with development, but I think development should be done all at once.

If you’re going to develop something like this, it should be done in an area where everybody knows it’s going to happen. It shouldn’t be a fill-in. And imagine my surprise. I understood why they wanted to fill in when I thought they were doing a rapid train system.

And then when I found out it was going to be rapid bus, and then it’s only two lines out of four, it was kind of like, why are we doing such a dramatic change to this community to increase ridership, where your transit system really isn’t what it was supposed to be when everything started out. So that is something I am extremely upset about in terms of how this came about. I know you’ve done a lot of time. You’ve got a great design and everything.

But the number of people that you’re putting into that area, it’s already in terms of traffic and extremely congested area. The number of parking spaces you are providing is one per unit, I believe, in residence, and about 100 roughly for the other necessities, the amenities, and all of those kinds of things. Those businesses, I don’t know how they will survive, because if you can’t even go and pick something up because you can’t park your car, it’s not going to happen. And the residents, because we don’t have a full rapid transit system, are probably going to drive, as I mentioned earlier, about parking, they’re going to drive to get there because it’s going to take a lot more time to get on rapid transit, go rapid transit, and then get onto another bus line and try and get around the city.

I mean, to drive in a car, it sometimes takes 45 minutes to get from one end to the other. And that’s not necessarily in a high traffic time. So parking is an issue. The number of people you’re dropping in there is an issue.

The amenities you set are within walking distance. Yes, you could walk, but unfortunately, the majority of people don’t walk. And we have walkers from our neighborhood that go over. But if you’re actually going to buy groceries, it’s not really too feasible unless you’re going to take a taxi so that you can carry them back.

So there are a lot of issues with that. Walmart is not exactly a place that provides a whole lot of choice. Barnboy is a very expensive place to shop. And if you’re going to be doing affordable housing, I’m guessing it’s going to be young people.

Or it could be elderly. Elderly people won’t be able to walk to these destinations. And yes, you do have delivery. But again, the elderly group, they’re not into online buying things and getting things delivered.

So depending on your demographics, that might be an issue. I know you said they took into consideration the shadow issues, I was stunned when I went online last night and started putting in some numbers and found out that if I estimated the 27 stories without really going above and beyond, I think I used 13 or 14 feet. We figured with concrete and everything. At one point in the day, the shadow is over 967.86 meters from that building if it’s 27 stories.

Basically, we’re within 120 meters of the property. We are directly across from where your 27 story building will go. We will not have sunshine for four hours of the day, all the afternoon, basically. Starting at about 1 o’clock in the afternoon, it goes past our property.

I’m not even sure how far 900 meters would go. That’s going to be into the next subdivision. You have about 20 seconds left. OK.

And now I would also like to say, I think I should get 10 minutes if the developer got 10 minutes. We sat here for hours tonight, and I don’t think it’s fair that you give them extra time if you don’t give us extra time. If you can continue, you have the five minutes. OK.

Let’s see. All right. I recently read something from a gentleman who is an international expert on buildings. And he is suggesting because of the large carbon impact of high rises, we shouldn’t even be building past six stories.

And that is a person who is professor of U of W, and he works internationally. If you please wrap it up. High rises should be banned over six stories. Let’s see.

Safety issues, traffic, and the service road, I understand, runs overtop of a creek. So I’m not quite sure which way the sewage system is going to the east or to the west, so that’s a concern. Hasn’t been addressed. And just is the infrastructure in place to handle that many residential units in that area, or is it going to be behind?

Thank you. Is there anyone here? Welcome, sir. If you can state your name, address if you wish.

And you have up to five minutes. Yes, my name is Ron McPherson. I am a live at 1096 Delano Boulevard, which is right across the street of Montgomery from where this complex goes. I’m also a boarder director of on the condominium 91, which is that condominium.

A lot of my friends, I should say, people that live in the complex are concerned about. The sun in our building D block is going to be blocked right out, because it’s probably only 40 yards from the building. So that’ll be pretty difficult for them. I’m on the unit, the first unit in on the second floor on Montgomery on that end.

We have a severe problem that I’ve talked to our London Police Department about the traffic on Montgomery. It only has one stop sign from Bradley to Southdale. And I just put it this way, the young guys like to race up there. I mean, they race up there.

And sometimes there’s multiple races, but it’s not been solved. We don’t even have a speed bump or anything. I can see why they don’t have a speed bump, because it’s an industrial road to get transport trucks into the businesses along Wellington, because it’s on the backside. It was really just a lane when they turned it into a street, but there’s very little access to it.

So that’s why it’s the speedway. Well, that would be the concern now that you’re going to put more traffic in, of course. That was about up already. Well, that’s the one thing.

And I also have the concern of the height of the buildings, 27 bars as stories, I should say, is about almost 100 meters high or so. That’s insane. So I wish that would be down a little bit. I’m a realist.

I know you can’t go down to six meters, six stars, but like a little lower, it’d be nice to 20 maybe. The other thing is that she mentioned both the creek. We have a spring that runs right under our complex. And we have issues with it quite often.

It comes out at the north— sorry, the southwest corner bubbles out in our parking lot all in the fall in the spring. So I just hope that they don’t disturb that. Or if they’ve looked into it, did they do any more samples to see? Because I don’t believe the buildings across the street have got basements and stuff in them.

They’re just on the flat. So they’re putting in underground parking. It might be a little wet, unless they have somewhere to drain it out. I guess that’s what I’ll say.

Thank you. Thank you. And if there’s anyone else that would like to make a comment, if you can state your name, address, if you wish, and you’ve got up to five minutes. We came down specifically to comment on this application.

This application makes people anxious because not because it’s in their backyard, but it’s because it’s not balanced. That’s what people are sensing about this application. If this was occupied at full capacity, which is legally to people per room, it would house approximately 5,000 people. And like anybody, people are going to move around.

They’re going to walk around. They’re going to drive around. And it’s understandable just to assess what those impacts are. And it’s also on a part of a road that is six lanes wide.

It’s a harsh environment for pedestrians. There’s no trees. The pollution levels on those sidewalks would probably be too toxic to be healthy for anybody to walk there on a regular basis. And this development is swapping out green space for parking lots.

And so the conversation comes full circle here is what are you doing here? Like what kind of city are you building? So if there were grounds on this building, it would benefit the people that live there because they have some space. And it might leave a pressure that area residents are sensing because they understand there’s thousands of people that could be going up and down their streets.

And so if that was your neighborhood, you would have the same anxiety. And the concern is that there’s a block of voting counselors that can’t seem to take a step back and revisit an application and finesse it so that it is good for the people that live in these buildings and good for the people that live in the community. Because this development is very intense. And the analysis isn’t there.

And it’s in a very harsh part of a city for to expect people to walk. Nobody walks on Wellington Street. It’s rare, very rare to see any pedestrians for blocks on Wellington Street because it’s not pedestrian friendly. And you need to take that into consideration.

And the fact that this development is offering one car per unit, that’s extraordinarily— I would say that’s extreme. And the other thing you need to acknowledge is that there’s a stigma for people that to ride the public transit in this system, in this city. They think that the people that ride the bus are low income people or young people or students. And you should just ask yourself when was the last time you rode the bus.

So there’s a lot of problems that have to be worked out. And the staff report is being cautious because they sort of recognize that these developments aren’t really supported because you’re not doing everything else to put everything in place to make this good for the people that are going to live there in the community. And I urge this voting block of counselors if you could step back and just finesse this development. So it’s actually good rather than just rubber stamp it, which is what the reputation is of this council.

That’s a growing reputation. So maybe we can stop that and do something that’s good for people and increase open space for these intense buildings. So people have a place to go and swap out the parking for open space. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now go to online. I have seen a hand. Debbie Lazaro, would you like to speak to this application?

I know your hand is up, but I’m not sure if you’re here to speak to this application or not. If you are, please unmute. Yeah, I’ll go to Cindy Pentland. I’ve just seen your hand pop up.

Welcome to planning if you’d like to speak to this application. Yeah, if you could state your name, address if you wish. And you have up to five minutes. Sure, thank you.

Cindy Pentland and I’m on Beach Mount Crescent. So I’m directly behind Montgomery. So just to reiterate what some of the other residents in the area said, the height issue, it’s not the development. It is the height issue.

Though the tallest area or the tallest building in our area right now is 15 stories, the Angelna Boulevard. And for the look of the area and that to go that high, those buildings are really going to stand out as maybe not an attractive look. Like I said, I understand the developments there. And there have been other developments in the city that they’ve been brought down.

A North London building was brought down over five stories because it was too tall for the area around the retirement home last year or the year before. And in 2021, a proposed development downtown across from Victoria Park was proposed at 25 stories. And the city didn’t approve that it was dropped down to 17 stories just because it didn’t fit in that area. So that consideration for this area would be appreciated as well.

Those buildings, I did some research today, would be in the top five tallest buildings in the whole city of London. So I know the gentleman said, coming into London, that would be attractive. I don’t know if I would agree with that, that it would be attractive. I would think people would maybe come in and think, oh, we’re in downtown already or just for a residential area.

They just seem excessively high. And honestly, I know they think people are going to walk. I live probably five minutes from White Oak Small, and I’ll get in my car and I’ll drive to White Oak Small. Some of us, you just can’t walk anywhere for whatever reason.

And that’s just human nature. If your car is there, you’re going to go. And as everyone else has said, it’s not the development itself. It’s the size of the development, the height of those buildings.

So one of them has already been brought down. So maybe that consideration on the rest of them as well, so that the residential area behind Montgomery isn’t swallowed up by these large buildings. So just I know consideration’s been done on those other developments in the city. So that’s just something to think about here within a residential area.

And obviously, the North London one was in a residential area as well. And then the other one from 2021 was downtown, and it was also brought down. Thank you. Thank you.

And I’d like to see if there’s anyone to assume that would like to make comments. Oh, Mr. Lazaro, yes. Welcome.

You have up to five minutes. Thank you. I just want to reiterate what Cindy had said about the property, because the 15 stories that are on the corner of Bradley and Jonah are the tallest one around here. So to say that coming into the city, it will set a precedent for us.

And if we let it go to 27 stories, who would just say that in another part of down White Oaks or further down to the 401, they want to go 29 or 30 stories. So 22 was proposed, and now they need to change the zoning to make it 27. I appreciate the fact that they changed the building— what one was it— building C. They changed that to 10 stories and building D to 20.

So that building C being changed to 10 stories or losing 10 stories. So five stories for each were the buildings for— that would be on B. So that gives them 27. And the other one, that was 22.

That gives them another five for 27. Again, 27 stories seems very high and seems very unrealistic in our area. And I mean, we’re not against progress here. As a resident of Beach Mount Crescent, we’re not.

We’re just against the height of it. It just seems to be very extreme. And also, I appreciate Mr. McPherson’s opinion, or not opinion, and he is right.

The traffic on Montgomery, late early hours of the morning, you’ll hear them racing down and people trying to sleep, calming their babies, it’s just not fair for us to have to put up with all that traffic. And Montgomery, when we moved in, was supposed to just be a service road. And now, if it’s having more traffic, 1,200 say, more cars, then we can’t even fathom the amount of that cars. And to have some type of calming measures would certainly be of interest to most homeowners, especially the ones that hear the noise all hours out the night.

So that’s really a concern too, is the height of it is our main thing, and also the traffic. The shadow, yeah, certainly the shadow is a big, big part. That if it goes up past 22 stories then, and especially the people that are really affected, which would be all of us on beach mount and behind us on Montgomery and the apartments, the three stories that are behind us. So we would like to see you not approve the top to 27 stories, and also to consider the traffic and some calming measures on Montgomery, because they have them on all parts of jail now, on parts of jail now over by the schools, and that there isn’t any schools on the other part of jail now.

There is calming measures down there. So I feel that we need a serious look at the calming measures going down Montgomery. Regardless of service roads and service trucks coming down, they see it, they’re not going to zoom down here, they have product in their truck, they’re not going to be zooming down. It’s just the racing that we hear all hours of the night.

And also, Palosa talked about a sidewalk on West side of Montgomery’s. As a homeowner, we are not interested in a sidewalk on the West side of Montgomery. I know that’s not part of the plan, but that’s something that needs to have a serious consideration that we’re just interested in seeing the traffic. And we’re not interested in sidewalk because I feel that would create more vandalism in our homes and/or garbage being thrown over as a walk along the sidewalk because we’ve experienced without the sidewalk.

So that’s really the concern is the traffic and certainly the height that we feel the proposed for 22 is certainly all that we truly are looking at. So I appreciate you giving me the time. Thank you. Thank you.

I have a next on my list, Cindy Pentland and Kenneth Johnson. If you would like to make comments on this application? No, I already spoke. Oh, sorry.

I’m just reviewing. So the last one I have then is Ying Wu, if you were here. Okay, I will last one more time from the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application, please come forward.

I hear and see none. So I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting, Councilor Turner, seconded by, Councilor Hillier, from proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll go to committee, members, for comments.

Councillor Hillier. Yeah, so a question to the developer. I’m just curious, they said the loss of 19 feet would result to the loss of 150 to 160 units. My biggest concern is on the three bedroom units and how many three bedroom units would be lost?

Is that, that’s a question for Mr. Campbell? Yes, please. Mr.

Campbell? I think you threw the chair to Councilor Hillier. That 19 feet, so that’s being requested by staff to be removed off of the Westerly side of the towers. Now, I don’t have the specific numbers as it relates to three bedroom units.

What I can say is that there are a number of three bedroom units that are proposed for this. So I can’t provide a definitive response to how many three bedroom units would be removed as part of this change that staff are suggesting. I can say that we and the ownership group are certainly not agreeable to that change. Again, because of the simple fact that that 19 feet over the aggregate of the entire development with the five different buildings, that results in the loss of upwards of 166 units across the whole development.

Maybe I could ask Kerrio Bryan from the ownership group. She may be able to address that specific question. Ms. Oppa.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilor Hillier, we couldn’t sort of definitively answer that, but I can make a general statement that generally our three bedroom units fall in the corners of the building, just based on structurally how the building lays out. So by reducing the width by the 19 feet, I can hypothecate that we would lose a significant amount of three bedroom units as it reduces the size of the floor plate. Hopefully that’s sufficient.

Well, those are the family units that I’m concerned about. Thank you. I may come back with another question. Thank you.

Looking to committee members, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did hear one of the residents ask about the water table in the area, and I’m wondering through you, and I don’t know whether our staff or whether the developer may have an answer to the water levels, though the water mitigation concerns, I guess that we’re raised in terms of where the water table is and how this impacts or potentially impacts this development. Are you referring to the creek, or is it just the water table in the area?

I guess it probably doesn’t matter, but I will go to staff too. Yeah, just for clarification, the gentleman from the public who spoke referred to both the creek in the area that runs under their building, as well as he just mentioned the area being generally wet overall and that concerns. So if there’s some information available on that. Ms.

Wise. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the site is currently developed. It doesn’t have any natural features on site, so no water course or creek has been identified thus far.

That said, through site plan, we do encourage low impact development to manage stormwater. That would typically trigger the need to investigate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions through either hydrogeological or geotechnical studies. So it would be likely dealt with through that process. Through the site plan process, Ms.

Wise, I just would like clarification. Yes, Madam Chair, that’s typically where the more detailed engineering comments occur. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. So one other question, we heard a reference to loss of open space.

Staff began their presentation by indicating that this has already developed site and Ms. Wise just repeated that and an underutilized site ‘cause it’s commercial and parking lot. How much green space open space can staff indicate that we’re losing if this development is approved? Ms.

Wise, could you answer that one, please? Or another staff member, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the site is currently just used for commercial parking and it supports the existing buildings on site.

So aside from a little bit of perimeter landscaping, I wouldn’t consider or classify this to be green space or open space. But along that line, St. Stephen’s Park is just located on the east side of Wellington. And there are also community facilities to the southwest near the White Oaks Park.

And excuse me, White Oaks Optimus Park, which are further west of the subject site that would support outdoor recreation and amenity for the residents. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think what is a final question for now and then we’ll see what colleagues have to say as well.

There’s a discrepancy in the staff report and Mr. Campbell started to indicate this in his comments as well between what staff are recommending for affordable units and what the developer is proposing. And we’ve heard that there is the lift from the London Plan and the lift from the 1989 official plan being different and the developer using the London Plan to meet us in the middle. I’m wondering if we could get just a little more clarification.

We didn’t entirely get Mr. Campbell’s comments on that. We got, and the staff didn’t really go into great detail in their presentation either. So I’m wondering if we could just get a very brief comment from both our staff and the developer in terms of why we’re seeing this discrepancy of 28 units in the affordable housing recommendations.

Okay, I’ll go to Mr. Campbell. I think you did explain the affordable housing piece, but if you could give further clarification. Absolutely, thank you, Madam Chair.

To Councillor Lewis, the discrepancy here is due to the base density or height as it pertains to the London Plan and the discrepancy between those two plans. So just to back up further, this application is being considered because of the overall policy intent of the London Plan. The 1989 policy does not consider this development. Rather, the 1989 plan maxes out at a density of 150 units per hectare.

And we’ll call in Ms. Wise’s presentation, this development is 566 units per hectare. So based on the policies of the London Plan, the our base density is 150 units per hectare and we’re bonusing up to 566. So if we use the 1989 plan as the basis for the lift, the lift is much, much more than what the London Plan offers us.

Now, the London Plan, the lift is based on the number of stories. So through our calculations, we looked at, well, how many stories are we going beyond the 15? Now, recall that the London Plan has since changed from when this application was originally made. We’re considering bonusing at 15 stories rather than the maximum that’s currently contemplated at 22.

So based on the London Plan, the lift actually works out to only 36 units. And again, that’s simply because the London Plan already contemplates more or less the level of intensity that we’re looking at for this particular site. Again, this is the second most intense area in the city. So again, so there’s the discrepancy between the two plans simply because the 1989 plan starts as a much lower density and the London Plan starts at a much higher density.

Now, recall that I mentioned 36 units as a calculation under the London Plan. Now, this particular developer is proposing significantly more than that, they’re proposing 65 units, not the 36 that will be calculated under the London Plan. And the 65 is posed as a halfway between the 89 plan and the London Plan. I know it’s— Thank you, Mr.

Campbell. Thank you very much. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate a little more detail on that. Let’s hope for— And I’ll go to staff now. I can say, could we hear? Yeah, I was gonna say, could we hear from Mr.

Barrett as well on that piece? Thank you, too, Madam Chair. First off, I wanna predicate my comments just to a bit of a shout out to the applicant and also just to also reiterate some of the comments that were made at the outset on this. We agree that this is in fact a transformative project.

We also very much appreciate the work that’s been done by the applicant and the consultation that’s been done with the city to bring this forward. We’ve expressed numerous times to the applicants how excited we are about this. And I think also as Mr. Campbell indicated, really we’re very, very close on this.

But what you’re hearing tonight really are just two issues that are left. One is the issue of how we calculate affordable housing and then the other issue is some discussion with respect to policies around slender towers. Affordable housing is what’s been asked. And I really, and I wanted to start by this, by saying this, I’ll just positive comments because what I’m gonna say next is somewhat negative.

And that is in fact, there is no such thing as a London Plan policy basis for bonusing or for the starting of any calculation. Mr. Campbell is correct that it’s the London Plan policies and only the London Plan policies actually allow us to bring forward this application that considers this range of development, this intensive development. And again, as I said, we are very supportive of this and very, very glad to be bringing forward a recommendation that brings this application forward.

The issue of bonusing was appealed in the London Plan. So there were no London Plan policies. They were one of the first things that were noted as being not able to be enforced to the London Plan. And in fact, for the past six years, Council has been using the basis for all bonusing considerations to be the policy considerations under the 1989 Plan.

And it’s only those bonusing provisions that we’re using out of the 1989 Plan for the first of this discussion. Again, as Mr. Campbell noted, this application is four square worth policies as the London Plan that relates to the intensity and the range of uses that are contemplated within the transit village. It’s only the bonusing component that is coming from the ‘89 Plan.

The ‘89 Plan speaks to bonusing based on height and density. And all of the previous bonasones that have been provided under the ‘89 Plan and more recently, those bonasones that we brought forward since the adoption of the London Plan, but where we’ve used the ‘89 Plan as a policy basis, speak to the height and the density. They do not speak to the stories. And in those bonusing provisions that we brought forward a note that speaks to height, it’s only the height because the by-law that’s used under both plans provides for height limits.

And so we would specify height limits. But the operative thing that was dealt with that gave greater value for the bonusing was based on density. The 1989 Plan provided base densities of 350 units per hectare in the downtown, 250 units per hectare for lands in central London, which was defined as the river, the river Oxford Street and Adelaide Street, and 150 units per hectare in all other areas outside the city. So in the calculation of the lift, 150 units per hectare is what has been used.

Not only in this application, but in every application that has been brought forward to this committee for considerations that’s the adoption of the London. The 150 units per hectare, multiplied by the lottery here, gives a total of, I believe it is, and I’ve just gone and lost that piece of paper, but it’s in the neighbourhood and it’s in the report. It’s in the neighbourhood of 340 odd units. This is for 1200 units.

The requested increase to the 566 units per hectare is what gives us the more than 1200 units. The delta or the difference in this is more than 900 units, it’s 928 or 27 units, which translates to the 93 units at the 10%. So there is no discrepancy in a policy interpretation because there is no policy interpretation to be made from the London plant as it relates to bonus. Thank you.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate both the developer and Mr. Barrett for providing some clarification on their perspectives on that.

The comments from committee, Councillor Lehman. Yeah, just a question back to affordable housing calculations ‘cause I’m a little confused. I looked at the last development of Oxford and calculate of 40 to 95 units and the affordable housing pushed for by staff there was 30 units, which is about 6%. Now they want 10% of the units here to come out at 93.

So perhaps staff can apologize if I’m not understanding this, but if they could explain the discrepancy on their calculations there. I’ll go to Mr. Barrett. I know you spoke about the different units per hectare and throughout the city.

We’re using 150 units in this application and Councillor Lehman is asking the difference of the calculation with calculate, Mr. Barrett. My recollection in fact was that there wasn’t a discrepancy was that in fact it was the 10% on that application. But if there’s a member of staff who’s on the line who can provide for, can you change on that?

Again, speaking back to it, if it wasn’t 10% and we have had some applications where in fact it hasn’t been 10%, but that’s because it’s been an exchange for other matters. For example, we did have previous bonus zones where we didn’t take 10% of the lift, but we actually took a lesser number of units because we got a longer or a deeper level of affordability. And so that was what the trade-off was. The lift that was calculated and this one in fact was 10%, it was 6%, I think of the total, but it was 10% of the lift on the Oxford Street application.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. The concern on calculate was if we refer to back to the developer, we would be in danger of not getting it back to council in time before our bonusing ends with the provincial government’s new policy change.

What risk do we have here of losing that affordable, all the affordable housing units, because we would not be able to approve this in time for that. Mr. Barrett? Well, you haven’t a rendered decision yet, so I don’t know that I can say what the risk is.

We do have one more meeting that we could bring back items before the deadline. So we have the next meeting of planning committee is the last committee that would be able to get to committee and then to council for a decision prior to the end of the adult age and consider bonusing. Councillor Lehman. So I’m a little confused.

The application presented by the developer has been changed. So I would assume it would have to go back to the developer to agree to these changes, which would require an extra cycle at least for the developer to get back. So maybe I will go to the developer. If staff recommendations were passed, what would be the impact on your application and the deadline for bonusing?

Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna refer this question to Gary O’Brien.

Gary, go ahead. Thanks, Madam Chair, if I may. Speaking, if it gets, I guess, approved as recommended by staff, Councillor Lehman, it’s very likely that the group would appeal the decision. If the decision was to refer it back to staff, I think we would end up in a similar position.

We’ve been working quite diligently with staff and we appreciate their work on that. But since December and very aggressively over the last month and a half, two months to come to a decision and a resolution on these last two items. And unfortunately, we just haven’t been able to make it there. As Mad indicated, there’s some significant fundamental differences in how this uplift is being calculated.

And we thought that the compromise of 65 units was a reasonable meet in the middle, per se, and unfortunately that was not accepted either. So I think we would end up going past the September deadline. Councillor Lehman. Thank you.

Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just a quick question about the parking amounts, the allocations in this. Earlier in the meeting, we heard about the parking updates proposed for 0.5 units, or 0.5 parking spots per unit.

Here, we’re at a one-part space per residential unit. Given that this is at a transit hub, one of our transit villages, was there opportunity and what was the discussion around this to provide minimum parkings at a lower rate than that in exchange for increased density? Is this for staff? Councillor Turner, if I can go to staff, Ms.

Weiss? Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to note that when the application was received, the parking standards item that we had just heard was still in a draft form. So this was considered on a site-specific basis and supported through transportation impact assessment.

That said, we did consider whether or not there was any conflict with potentially the new proposed standards going forward. But we also didn’t want to presuppose the outcome of council seeing as it has not yet met that test. That said, there is a reduction requested from the minimum requirements of the by-law. That would be for one space per residential unit and then a smaller ratio for the retail component, which is typically more of an intensive demand.

And that was supported due to the modal options in the area, including the future rapid transit. Thank you, Ms. Weiss. Let’s just pre-comment on that one.

It seems like that that’s an opportunity. I’m glad to hear that we’ve seen space reductions for parking given, and I completely understand not to presuppose what the outcome is on the policies that we heard earlier. That said, this seems like one of those places where of all the places in the city, this would have the biggest impact. I mean, the difference here would be a difference of almost 600 parking spots.

And that’s a significant cost to the developer and at significant opportunity cost in terms of space for development. And it really highlights what we were discussing earlier in the evening, talking about how parking space is displaced, our opportunity to place other things, more desirable things in that same area. Okay, so that’s helpful. I would, recognizing we’re at kind of the 11th hour on this, that probably is not helpful to the conversation.

But especially with such a marquee development at a transit village, that this is really where we need to start thinking about not having parking anywhere close to the degree that we see in any other developments, because we’re right on that transit corridor. A comment came from one of the community members earlier about the development being there to support transit. It’s actually the other way around rapid transit is predicated on being the catalyst for more development for intensification along the line. And we’re starting to see exactly that.

That’s what this is, it’s transformational, as Mr. Campbell said. And I’m glad to see these things coming forward because it shows kind of proof in the pudding of what the rapid transit policy was all about, about creating intensification along very key corridors to be able to make best use of our infrastructure within a consolidated area. So good to see this going forward.

I’m getting very frustrated when I see applicants come forward with alternative bylaws. I think that’s kind of poor form. It really kind of tries to circumvent the process of what’s appropriate in being able to negotiate and work with staff to come to the consensus and disappointing to hear the applicant put forward the concept that they would appeal on what I would see is somewhat trivial at this point considering the size of this application. So if this is going to go forward, I hope it goes forward on what the staff recommendation is and that we’re not entertaining what the alternate recommendation is from the applicant.

Thank you, Councillor Turner. Just before I go to you, Councillor Lewis. I know Mr. Campbell’s head is hand up for a while.

We are right now a committee and committee members are making comments. Just wondering, that’s what we’re doing at the moment. I’m not sure how much more you can say. I think Councillor Turner was satisfied with the answers that he received.

We’re here at committee making comments at the moment. Oh, you’ve got your hand down. Sorry about that, Mr. Campbell.

I’m just a little confused here. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna be really brief here ‘cause I see that the word Councillor has raised her hand to and although she’s not a voting member of this committee, I absolutely wanna hear from the word Councillor.

I’m just gonna be very quick here though. I hope Councillor Palazzo will indulge me with just a quick second of patience. I’m really hearing two hang-ups here. And I just wanna share with committee members, I’m not hung up on the 1050 floor plate.

The 19 feet or 20 feet that was referred to at the cost of three bedrooms to me is not a reason to impose a condition. I am still wrapping my head around the affordable housing difference though, and that is a concern for me. So I just wanna share that with committee members. I’m not supportive of the staff recommendation, but I’m not fully supportive of the alternate recommendation that came forward either.

I see the 1050 floor plate size as really an arbitrary thing that’s being imposed and it will cost us some three bedrooms. So I’m not comfortable with that condition. That said, I’m still talking about the affordable housing piece and I’m not sure where that lands, but I do know with three bedroom units in the mix, I want some three bedroom affordable units, some family size units in the affordable mix. So share those thoughts and then I’ll show up now and give you the opportunity to go to the board counselor.

Counselor, close up. Thank you, Madam Chair for recognizing me. Committee realizing it’s been a long night and this is the third time you’ve got to hear from me this evening. I guess I’ll do this in two parts.

One, just preferencing the area for city counselors, recognizing we’re south of Old South and pretty far into the city for some residents and throughout the city that this area is directly across from White Oak small. There’s the South line community center just to the west of it, which has a beautiful park, ball diamond splash pad, settlement services, blood and public libraries there. There is green space right across the street in this development as well being State students park in Ward 14. To me, this is a complete neighborhood.

It is somewhat walkable. Yes, the streetscape is going to be beautified throughout West Rapid Transit as it does having complete sidewalks at the moment. Fanshawe College is right across the street. They welcome international students who are mature students.

Some residents were worried they are mature students in their 20s looking for housing nearby, discovering how far this campus is from the other campus. They would like to settle in South London and are looking for a new opportunity. Most of the builds in this area, there are some 15 story apartment buildings, but it’s been decades since anything’s built in the south. So residents, thank you for hearing them tonight and you would see lots of comments in our package tonight as this process is new to many of my residents.

So thank you for hearing them this evening and being sure to read their comments within our package. As for the floor plates, I am supportive of the developers request. It’s one of the things I’ve been pushing for when any developer approaches me of just not doing ones and twos, trying to get those threes in theirs for families can live in apartments who want to, who are moving here and who have multi-generational families living together and those who need a home office to make sure that our communities stay complete and people can have housing options to live as they would like to. The community meetings that the developer had with the community were well intended, very passionate meetings.

They did take considerations back into their planning application that has been revised as before you tonight. The garbage will be handled within their buildings to make sure that that noise and the smell isn’t bothered to neighboring residents. They’ve heard the community’s concerned about the tall towers close to Montgomery as that was the road that was buffering nearby residents and did take down that building height. That is why we see some of the buildings, other buildings on their site being taller ‘cause they already took in that resident feedback before they even came to committee.

I’ve been told that they can handle the construction on their sites. Residents were concerned about neighboring traffic construction vehicles and where they’re gonna be. I was told that could be contained on site. I do have a question through you, Madam Chair, two staff as residents are asking that there’s 12,072 units, but there’s 13,075 parking spots.

How did the developers see those being allocated as there’s three bedrooms and residents are concerned that they’ll have too many cars for residents? I know, ideally, the market sorts itself. I hope that residents are just asking how that is allotted to visitor parking, resident parking, and that commercial customer parking if there’s a plan for that. Thank you, Councillor Palazzo.

Thanks for the question around the clarification because I have different numbers here and maybe going back to staff. So I understand that the 1,272 units with 1,375 parking spaces, the density is 566 units per hectare, and you’re at a question. So we need to just verify those numbers or your numbers, and then the additional breakdown of the parking spots when it comes to visitor parking, et cetera. Ms.

Wise, if you can help us here. Thank you, Madam Chair, that’s correct. There are 1,272 units, 1,375 parking spaces and then an overall density of 566 units per hectare. I will just note that as part of the transportation impact assessment, part of the reduction in parking was also supported by an onsite shared system.

So it would be a little bit more flexible in terms of commercial parking that could be utilized at night and that sort of thing. So we do have minimum requirements for a certain percentage of visitor parking spaces, which would be identified same with accessible parking and those types of specialized spaces, but most of it would be up to the applicant to determine which units could share the parking. Councillor Palosa. Thank you for that, and it does make sense.

If you have visitors over in the evening, you’d be past or sleepover visitors. They would be past the commercial usage time that you’re looking for anyways. Their question some residents had was the construction timelines, realizing BRT set for a couple of years out, and there’s multiple towers. Just how, I know some of this comes through site plan, but how that construction timelines rolling out and are they doing all construction at once or is this a phased approach?

Just as community residents have noise mitigation concerns. Great question, this was. Madam Chair, that might be a question best answered by the applicants. We’ve made similar requests for some timelines on phasing and I don’t think there was anything called Crete up until now.

Madam Chair, for me, thank you very much. I’m gonna refer this question to Carrie simply because it’s more site specific as a result to with the construction, Carrie, please. Thanks, Madam. Anticipating, you know, a positive decision in the near future and approximately a year to achieve site plan approval, it will be a phased construction.

At this time, we’re anticipating starting with tower E first. And that’s all subject to sort of the timing of construction of BRT and what works best with those services and that could change. There’s likely no chance that we would be starting construction within the next year, but we are anxious to get started as soon as possible and look forward to having a conversation with the BRT team so that we can make sure design of that route is efficient in terms of accommodating our development. Councillor Palazzo.

Thank you, you’ve heard my pitch of why I think or 12 in this area of the city is so great in the amenities that future residents can enjoy. From resident feedback, it is in your package, you’ve heard them this evening as well, that many residents feel a three story townhouse complex is what would be right for this area. You’ve heard a gentleman today say, you know, maybe 10 stories, some residents are requesting that anything like this be built south of the 401 where we don’t have servicing in accordance with this being a transit village on the bus wrap a transit corridor. This is the type of intensification that the plan has laid out for the city of where we would like to see this kind of developments.

I would anticipate seeing more of this coming to the area throughout our bus wrap a transit plan throughout the city. I know that’s not what residents want, want who live directly in the area. And I guess the local residents who are living close by are no, I’m happy to dig into the Montgomery traffic calming and what we can do there is I know street racing throughout that area south London is already an issue and looking happy to tackle that now. Some residents seem split on that sidewalk.

I know they definitely want better grass trimming on the city boulevards and some garbage concerns happy to tackle that now, no need to wait. So just to the community, thank you for raising your voices regardless of what side of this year on. And please know that committee and council’s approval, we are listening and we are here to serve. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you. So I’ll go to committee for a motion. Councilor Van Halz or I’m just looking, would you like to make a comment here? Thank you Madam Chair.

Okay, okay. Thank you. Yeah, please proceed. Okay, that’s great regarding a couple of the things that have been said, one about parking.

In terms of having a parking at a transit village, I think this is the one where we might want to see the most parking simply because it’s close to the 401. And some people might want to use this as a place to live so they can access that route. Whereas it wouldn’t be the same for white oaks or Oak Ridge or I’ll say. So those other corners of the city.

I know that when I lived in a transit village which was in downtown Toronto, my basement was the Young Gloor subway, which was tremendous. I did have a car and I kept it parked up by the 401 at York Mills just so I could get the car and get onto the 401 which was the route that I would take to work. So I think people may do that here. And so as looking for less parking, I think is less important here than it might be in some of the other places because I can see how people may want to access that.

The other thing I’ll say to staff and the developers. And despite, I realized that the residents have concerns about the height. Nevertheless, this is quite a tremendous step towards our vision of the London plan. And I was quite excited to see the proposal.

And the drawings because that’s exactly what was intended. Thank you, Councillor. Well done for that. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve won, I guess one more line of questioning. I hope I’m very brief on this, but we’ll see what the answers are. Maybe this is the case where the point we reached tonight is gonna make no one happy, which is sometimes where the compromise is.

Mr. Barrett referred to the next planning meeting as being the only one available now to resolve any bonus applications that we’re outstanding. And I come back to, we’ve got two key differences here. The floor plate size for the towers and the affordable housing mix.

I can’t help but wonder if the mix on the affordable housing might actually be where perhaps some movement could be obtained in that if the mix is a little different, skewed slightly more towards the family units, we might accept a lower number of overall units for the units that we’re receiving, being slightly larger units than we’re used to receiving. So through you, I wonder if Mr. Barrett could indicate to us, if we were very clear on a referral back that indicated both floor plate and the affordable housing component, one last kick at the can for staff and the developer to see if they can reach a middle ground. Is August 22nd enough time for that kind of conversation?

Or are we really at this point just spinning our wheels and better to— Mr. Barrett. Thank you, through the chair, if the referral is very explicit and very tight so that both the applicant and staff are aware of what council’s concerns are explicitly that you would like us to focus on, certainly we would get it back. As I said at the outset, I sincere in this, we’re very, very excited by this application.

We feel that we’re very, very close. The issue on affordable housing is a fundamental disagreement on how that calculation is done. As I’ve laid out to you, we don’t see it as a fundamental disagreement at all because in fact, there is no policy basis so there is no discrepancy for that. What I would suggest to you that if you were to send us back, I’ll deal with you affordable housing first, that council very clearly give us some direction, explicitly state what it is that you would be looking for for a reduced number from the 10% that we are recommending to you because that would very much help with us, I think, any applicant.

The same thing as it relates to any floor plate discussion. If council has a number in mind or has no number in mind, either way, if they could provide that direction, I think with those kinds of, with that very explicit direction, we could come back to you to make it for the August meeting. And if I could, just a sidebar just related to this, to provide councilor Layman with a level of comfort, if I may, just in the wall that was here, I was able to go back and just verify the calculation. So just for councilor Layman, on the Oxford site, it was a 1.24 hectare site.

We did use the 150 units per hectare, and that would have given 186 units. There were 490 units proposed in that development, which was the 304 unit lift, and we applied to 10%, which was the 30 units, which were recommended in that bonus zone. So I just wanted the councilor to understand that, in fact, we did the calculation in the very same way on that. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate Mr. Barrett giving me an extra 60 or 70 seconds there to think with his sidebar, I’m not sure if that additional amount of time has helped me firm up my thoughts on this. As I said to colleagues earlier, the built form piece that the developer has submitted to me is fine. I don’t have an issue with the floor plate being the 19 and a half or 20, there’s, I’ve seen 20 and 19, so I’m rounding it off to 19.5 feet difference right now in the width of the building.

I am struggling with, and I hear the developer’s perspective on how they’ve calculated, I’ve heard our staff’s position on how they’ve calculated. I think that there is a middle ground here in terms of what mix of those units, and I’m just looking at what we have right now is suggested that 35 or one bedroom, 25 or two bedroom, two or three bedroom, and then three towns are calculated into that 65 mix. And I’m wondering if the ratio of mix, if the number is 65, but we’re getting a trade off in number of towns and three bedrooms, if there’s an opportunity there to come back. So I’ll take a stab at this, I guess, and we’ll see if there’s a seconder.

I’m gonna move a referral back with direction to staff to address this may not be the correct language. So I made to Mr. Barrett for some assistance with this to remove the 1050 floor plate condition to allow the built form as proposed by the developer and to see if it’s not HDC anymore. I’m gonna lose my train of thought on the current name of the department that we enter into, because we’re treated and transitioning away from HDC, but I’m gonna use the language HDC for the moment and to direct HDC to have a further discussion with the applicant to see if an acceptable mix of larger unit sizes could be obtained to meet at the 65 unit affordability in terms of the trade off or the larger unit sizes.

And my apologies to the clerk. I know that’s a bit of a word salad there in terms of what I’m trying to get across. And I see Mr. Mathers has turned his camera on and maybe his wisdom can help massage that language a little bit for us.

Mr. Mathers. - Through the chair. So that would be the municipal housing development group that would be the ones that are now working on those aspects of the negotiation.

So if you want to include them as the relevant partner, that would be great. Thank you. Yes, that would be also to report back to the August 22nd meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, given that that is the last one where we can consider bonusing applications. Just take a moment for the clerk to get the wording.

Is it up there? Madam Chair, if I may, while the clerk is pulling that forward and taking Councillor Lewis’s invitation. Yes, go ahead. Thank you with respect to the first part on the removal of the floor plate reference.

If I could just clarify that. In fact, it’s posed by-law that’s been put in front of you by staff, but removing the explicit references to a floor plate size. I believe that, in fact, the other design matters that are identified within those bonus descriptions still meet the intent. It does have the word slender towers, but by removing the number, that discussion then can still occur.

So I just wanted to confirm that with the intent of the mover. And then the second part, if I may, what I understand the intent is that it would be within the context of 65 affordable housing units, but it would be for a mix that provides a greater proportion or a larger number of the family sized three bedroom type units as consideration for the number less than the 10% if I may. Councillor Lewis. Thank you for that, Mr.

Barrett. And certainly with the floor plate condition, seeing the language the clerk has typed up here now and that’s specifically referred to in there. When I was referring to the larger mix of unit sizes, the largest proportion is still the one bedroom units. So if it’s two and three bedroom units, even in a change of the mix, I’m okay with that.

‘Cause I think even the two bedroom units provide a greater community benefit when they’re in a different proportion than what’s there now. So I’m comfortable if Mr. Barrett is comfortable with the language that just reads as the clerk has typed it up to direct the municipal housing to have further discussion with the applicant to see if a larger mix of unit sizes could be obtained in the terms of affordable units and report back. I suppose maybe see if a different mix of unit sizes could be obtained in terms of the 65 affordable units.

Maybe it’s a little bit better way to say that. Just to help you out, Councillor Lewis, I know I heard from staff, they’re looking for explicit direction here. And I know we’re back and forth, you’re asking staff to help you assist you with the wording, but I also hear staff is asking for direct, explicit direction here too. And I’m trying to just get the language here, Madam Chair, that 65 units to have that discussion on the ratio of unit types within the 65 unit envelope.

Perhaps that’s the better way to say it, because the ratio right now is staggered to the one bedrooms and I’m looking for a change of ratio. That’s 65 units still. Thank you again, Madam Chair, through you. I believe that we’ve captured that.

What if I may and not want to put words in the Councillor’s mouth, what the Councillor’s suggesting is that the mix of units would skew more to the two bedroom, three bedroom than is currently proposed, that the Councillor is suggesting that in fact, the ratio of the one bedroom units could be decreased in exchange for providing a greater number of two bedroom and three bedroom units. I think that’s the direction and certainly we can work with that because we also have the context of the 65 units. The other thing that I would really like to also confirm again from the Councillor explicitly is, and going to the by-law as was proposed by staff as opposed to the by-law that was added by the applicant is that the other conditions of the staff proposed by-law, in other words, the 50-year term, the tenant placement agreement and those kinds of things, it’s not the 30-year term as was proposed in the applicant’s by-law. In fact, it’s the 50-year term which is consistent with the previous bonus applications that Councillor has approved.

Sorry, Madam Chair, Mr. Barrett was looking for some confirmation from me on that through you. Whatever our municipal housing folks want to bring back, I’m in terms of the tenant placement agreement, I think that’s pretty standard across the board because that addresses our wait list times. So the 50 years, 30 years, I know we’ve done some that are 20, 25 years in other developments.

If there’s a ratio trade off there, I’m okay with our staff discussing that. They’re the experts in terms of what they want to bring back to us, ultimately. So I don’t want to completely handcuff them on that. I think the tenant placement agreement, absolutely.

The duration and the ratio, I would like them to have some flexibility to report back to us on. So, Clerk, is redoing the referral bag? We’re not quite ready for it yet. Councillor Turner.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate what Councillor Lewis is looking to accomplish here. One of the challenges with being on Council is that we’re in front of cameras and our negotiation side of things happens here and we’re not good negotiators. So what’s happening, and I said it earlier to another application, the market doesn’t act in the public interest, the market acts in the market’s interest.

They don’t do good things, to do good things, they do good things because it advances the market’s interest. And the floor plate debate that we’ve had here is an emotional debate and it doesn’t really exist. The number of new units that would be afforded by that isn’t part of the proposal here. It’s what we have in front of us is within the context and the rules and the framework of what is permitted within our guidelines, regulations and laws and what the developer is looking for is something else.

They’re trying to negotiate it in a bit more in terms of decreasing the amount of affordable units. Again, they’re trying to increase and maximize their profits at the expense of the number of units available at affordable rates to the public. So I’m struggling with the idea that at this point that we would provide kind of nebulous direction and I know that Council Lewis is trying to get as specific as possible but that last little bit about the length of time that this might be in place and say, okay, well, let’s hear what the recommendations from our housing office might be, puts a foot in the door for them and undermines our negotiating position in this too. So that’s why it’s a challenge for things to get here and then for Council to kind of tweak and amend.

I think part of the objective in terms of that net amount of housing might be reasonable. I think probably one way to approach it is that the net amount of bedrooms remains the same. Maybe it’s fewer units but the number of bedrooms is the same. However, what we’ve heard time and time again from housing development has been that the need is greatest in the singles.

And so, notionally it makes sense to us to say, okay, we need more in the family-sized units but that’s not what we’ve been hearing from our housing folks who say we need as many singles as we can get out there. But I think there’s a part that’s intuitively true that we do need two’s and three’s bedroom units as well. Council Lewis talked to the idea of compromising this too. We’re going 20% over what our limits are with bonusing in terms of height.

We’re going from 22 to 27 stories. That’s 20% higher. So, the city has done a fair amount of compromise in here. I can plug my nose and say, okay, right, we’ll look the other way on this policy piece which is like the absolute limit of what we have in our city policies because we’re accomplishing 93 units of affordable housing and we’re looking at 1200 units.

I can look the other way on the too much parking, I would think, in this as well. As long as we get someplace that seems to be generally supported by staff, but when we start to go a little bit different because somebody’s asking us for a little bit more at the end here, not the right time for that. And especially when we’ve got one meeting left to accomplish something. I mean, like really, this is as close to under the wire as you can get.

So I’m not supportive of any changes. I’m on the edge of supportive of what’s being recommended here because it really exceeds what we have in our policy basis. But it accomplishes the general intent of what our policy is and that’s for intensification at our trends of villages. So I hope that maybe my colleagues would just entertain the staff recommendation and let’s just move forward with it.

I’ll make the same arguments of Council when we get there. Okay, Councillor Turner, I’m not sure if everyone can refresh and see the motion in front of us. I will go to Councillor Lewis and then Councillor Layman. So we have the referral.

If you can refresh and just for the public’s sake, I will read it. If the clerk is ready for the referral back, which states to refer the application to the August 22nd, 2022 Planning and Environment Committee meeting with a specific request for the civic administration and the applicant to remove the 1050 floor plate condition as recommended by the developer and to allow the municipal housing and to direct municipal housing to have a further discussion with the applicant to see if a larger mix of unit sizes could be obtained in terms of affordable units and to report back. At the August 22nd, 2022 Planning and Environment Committee meeting to further negotiate the mix of the 65 affordable units specifically to increase the number of two and three bedroom units that would be available and be pursuant to section 3417 of the Planning Act, no further no to speak given. Councillor Lewis.

That meets my intent, Madam Chair. So we can continue on with the speaker’s list. So we do have a referral back with a seconder. Councillor Layman, are you second?

I believe Councillor Hilliard, that is a seconder. Oh, sorry. If I want to speak to it. Okay, I’ll go to you and then I’ll go to committee members.

Go ahead. So here we are. I agree with Councillor Turner on loads to get into negotiations on this floor. However, up till now, what we have heard has not transpired.

We heard with rapid transit, we would see development against along the BRT routes that were approved by Council. A report earlier this year showed that that has not been a case, there has been no significant, there’s been no dispersion of development, has not been significantly showing to be along the BRT routes approved. Now here we’ve got development that was told that would come along with BRT. The gateway BRT route is the most significant route in my mind of the three that were approved by Council.

And this is the type of development that I had in mind would happen along that corridor. We’re at risk of losing a couple of things here. We’re risk of losing affordable housing because if this does not go through, the developer is not on board, our affordable housing window closes. Three bedrooms, yeah, there is a need for single bedroom units, no question, but I haven’t seen too many three bedroom units come before us.

And again, if we’re going to intensify, it has to be more than just single people living in the intensification. It has to be more than that. What better place than this type of development? So we’re close and I would hate to see this, we would lose the affordable housing and I would hate to see it this to be delayed because I believe when this passes, it will spur other development along this corridor.

So for that reason, I would think I would dip my toe into this water, it’s a bit convoluted. We’re so close and it’s been two years of back and forth. I know between staff and the developer I’ve give and take, give and take. I’m hoping with this direction that Councilor Lewis proposes, we can get this development approved and get on with it.

And let’s see what was envisioned years ago when rapid transit was first discussed. Let’s see this come to fruition. Not five, 10 years down the road, but let’s see it get going in the next two or three years. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

Any other comments from committee members? Seeing none, I’ll go to Councillor Van Halce. Councillor Van Halce, we cannot hear you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I appreciate the negotiation we’re trying to do. I wonder if committee couldn’t simply set the number of, or set the ratio of two and three bedroom humans by saying, have it be double or triple, do that tonight and pass it through, simply ask for what count, the committee desires. And then if the developer wanted something different, they could come back in the next cycle. It seems to me that might save us, save us that referral.

And it would certainly be the specifics that staff were looking for. So I put that out as a suggestion. Thank you, Councillor Van Halce. Any other comments before I make a comment?

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this will be my last comment on this. I understand both Councillor Turner and Councillor Layman’s points, you know, it is never ideal to be figuring things out on the floor here as we go.

It’s always tough to thread that needle, no matter what the issue is. However, one of our roles as council is to decide on things when there is a space. And there are professional planners on both sides, on our staff side and on the private sector side who disagree on where they’ve gotten to with these final two points. And I think it’s our decision to or it’s our role in part to be arbitrators of that to some extent.

But, you know, we could do what Councillor Van Hal suggest and just pick numbers. We could do the same with, you know, there’s a 28 unit difference between the developer’s proposal and the staff’s proposal on the affordable unit total. We could pick the middle number between that and say that’s the number of affordable units. But I think in giving one last kick of the can to both our staff and the applicant’s staff, we remove ourselves a degree from being that arbitrary decision and let them each have one more chance to discuss this.

And I think that’s the most fair approach to this. I agree with the comments that have been made about with the transit village and the transit routes and Councilor Turner’s right, the transit there to support the intensity, not the other way around, that this is a location for this. And we’ve got these towers that I hear the community’s concern about the height. The height came from five stories or five towers, all the same height to some step downs towards the residential neighborhood and putting those stories up on the other side, on the Wellington roadside, which doesn’t have the same residential component backing onto it immediately.

So, you know, it’s always a give and take in these situations. Like I said, when I started this, I suspect that neither our staff nor the applicant staff are going to be happy with the referral. But I think that’s the best route forward because I think if we don’t give them that one last chance here, as I said earlier, I can’t support the conditions the staff are imposing. And we could end up with a negative decision tonight that goes right to an appeal.

This maybe gives one more chance. I know we heard the developer say that this might end up an appeal anyway, but I’d like to give them both sides one last chance to try and see if there’s a place to meet in the middle here so at the risk of leaving both our staff and the developer staff unhappy, I hope the folks will support this. Thank you, Councillor Lewis, and I’ll go to the clerk. So my understanding is that this would come back as a public participation meeting on August 22nd.

That’s correct. And while the clerk is adding that piece in, there will be another public participation meeting to the referral back if it is supported. I just wanna make comments to the public. I know you’re still here tonight, I know it’s quite late.

I do, I think we as a committee do appreciate your comments, the challenges, as you can tell, are we’re debating around the affordable housing units and how we can, I guess, come to us some kind of a compromise because there is not a compromise at the moment. I appreciate the community’s comments, especially around the pedestrian and fender piece in your neighborhood and how we can do a better job. I would hope I am supportive of this application. It is in that transit village.

We’re gonna see more and more of these applications, these intense applications within these transit areas coming forward, if not sooner. Definitely, it is something that we’re gonna see more and more of because it is allowed. There are negotiations that have to take place right now around the affordable housing piece, but I am not supportive of this referral. And I must say, I know staff and the applicant have been working on this for two to three years.

I would encourage them to keep on working because this is an exceptional development without a doubt. But I do not think that we, as a committee, are the experts here. I am not interested in doing the developer’s bidding. That is what this feels like.

I am not gonna be supporting this referral back. I do know that we have on numerous, just about every application talked about the lift, talked about the 10%. It’s been a consistent approach, all the applications that we hear. And now we are changing the rules.

And I am not comfortable with doing that. I appreciate the Councillor. Louis is trying to make that compromise, but we are not the experts here. I am supportive of the recommendation, the 93 units of affordable housing.

But more important, this development is the appropriate form for this massive development. The form and the slender of the buildings is consistent with our policies. And I am not prepared to just start chipping away at our policies and we, as a committee, coming up with what is best. And I don’t see this as being best for the community and will not be supporting the referral.

And with that, do we have to refresh and see the final referral back if committee members can refresh? And I’ll go to the Councillor for his satisfied. I’m just refreshing as well. It didn’t cut the first time.

Don’t see it. Last referral, if we can refresh. Okay, committee members, we should be able to see the latest version of the referral back. I see the mayor has joined us.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor. Always a pleasure. Could you just cue me in chair just for this purpose now that I’m back in the meeting, please?

Yes, we have a referral back on the 1067, 1069, 1071 Wellington Road application. The referral has been, I can read it if you refresh. Your screen, the referral states that the application to a public participation meeting at the August 22nd, 2022 planning and environment committee with a specific request for the civic administration and the applicant to remove the 1054 plate condition as recommended by the developer and to allow the municipal housing and to direct municipal housing to have a further discussion with the applicant to see if a larger mix of unit sizes could be obtained in terms of affordable units and to report back at the August 22nd, 2022 planning and environment committee meeting to further negotiate the mix of 65 affordable units specifically to increase the number of two and three bedroom units that would be available. Be pursuant to section 3417 of the planning act.

No further note to speak, Evan. I’m only, I’m only struggling chair. I’d like to make a thoughtful, but I haven’t heard the presentation on this. And I haven’t heard the, I haven’t heard the commentary.

I’ve read the notes. I’m not sure why the referral, I can’t understand that. Well, you’ve joined in at the very end. I wonder if I could go to the mover of the motion and very insuscinct.

It is getting late, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I know you meant succinct, not insuscinct. Your worship, we’ve had a lengthy discussion around this application.

And there are two key sticking points between our staff and the developer, which is the number of affordable units and the maximum floor plate size at eight stories. We did hear that the reduced floor plate sizes would be a reduction in three bedroom units. And I express my concern for the loss of those and have moved a referral to see if there is an opportunity. If the 1050 floor plate condition is removed as recommended by the developer, if a negotiation can be reached on the 65 affordable units with a different ratio of the bedroom divisions, that would be acceptable to the municipal housing team here at the city of London, based on what has been submitted rather than moving the alternate by-law.

So I hope that’s clear. And as succinct as the late hour allows. And if I might, through you, Chair, to Councillor Lewis, who was the seconder on that? That would have been Councillor Hillier, your worship.

All right, thank you very much. Okay, I just, that’s helpful. But final question, I want to ask any more on this. You all been at this long enough.

And I’ve just come back from my meetings. What’s the timeline associated with the referral back? August is 22nd. All right, thank you.

And thank you all. Thank you, Councillor Lewis, for being succinct. My words, I’m having difficulty getting them out. My mouth is the evening wears on.

And with that, we can proceed to vote if there are no further comments. Chair, I’ll support the referral back. Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to two.

And for the public that is public participation meeting on August the 22nd. And moving on to item number four, items for direction. I see none, deferred matters, additional business. I see none, number six, confidential.

We have 6.1. I wonder if I can go to the clerk to speak to the confidential. Yes, the reason the committee is going into camera is a matter pertaining to a proposed land donation and pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose, advice that is subject to solicited or quiet privilege, commercial and financial information that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position plan procedure criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. Thank you.

And I’m looking for a motion to, oh, I didn’t get a motion to go in camera. If I can get a motion, thank you, Councillor Lewis. And seconded by Councillor Turner. And if we can have a hand vote or it’s up on the screen, we can proceed to vote.

Terrible, yes, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Recording stopped. Okay, I now look to Vice Chair, Councillor Layman to report.

I’d like to report out the progress was made on the matter to go into camera in the confidential session. Thank you, moving on to the last item on our agenda. Seven, German. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Can we do a hand vote? All those in favor? Thank you and enjoy your evening, good night. Glad I didn’t miss it.