August 22, 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 and S. Lehman present and all other members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2022-08-10 CACP Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on August 10, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.   (2022-A02)

Motion Passed

2.3   Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan - Update

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Update

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the staff report dated August 22, 2022 entitled “The Corporation of the City of London Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan - Update”, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-D05)

Motion Passed

2.4   Building Division Monthly Report - June 2022

2022-08-22 Staff Report - June Building Division Report

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

Motion Passed

2.2   3493 Colonel Talbot Road - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-14504)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 3493 Colonel Tablot Road (39T-14504)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2219008 Ontario Limited (York Developments), relating to the lands located at 3493 Colonel Talbot Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision SUBJECT TO the revised conditions contained in Appendix “A” (File No. 39T-14504) appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Zoning By-law: Patio Restrictions

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - ZBL Seasonal Outdoor Patios

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to outdoor patios BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with a revised by-law removing the seasonal patio time restrictions time in section 4.18 of not more than three consecutive days and the thirty-day limit, and to provide the mechanisms by which the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario regulates capacity;

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

  •    a communication dated August 7, 2022, from R. Webb;

  •    a communication dated August 17, 2022, from S. Olivastri;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022, from E. Mitchell;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022, from A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    A.M. Valastro.  (2022-D23)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road (Z-9521)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road (Z-9521)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by MHBC Planning (Scott Allen, Partner), relating to lands located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road:

a)    the proposed revised, attached, by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with The London Plan), to amend the regulations of the Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(23)) Zone, Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4(36)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-1(17)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-3(5)) Zone, Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(12)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(62)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(65)) Zone, and Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(50)) Zone by deleting Front Yard Setback, Main Dwelling 4.5 metres (Maximum) and adding Front Yard Setback, Main Dwelling for lots fronting on Neighbourhood Connectors (Royal Magnolia Avenue and Campbell Street North) 3.0 metres (Minimum) and 6.0 metres (Maximum) and modifying the regulation which states “Garages shall not project beyond the façade of the dwelling or façade (front face) of any porch, and shall not occupy more than 50% of lot frontage” by including after the words “…..of any porch,” the following: “whichever is closer to the front lot line,”; and,

b)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to delete the Front Yard Setback, Main Dwelling 4.5 metres (Maximum) regulation from the Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(23)) Zone, Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4(36)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-1(17)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-3(5)) Zone, Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(12)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(62)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(64)), Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(65)) Zone, and Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(50)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    the requested amendment does not meet the intent of The London Plan City Building and Design polices; and,

ii)    the requested amendment does not meet the intent of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (Section 20.5.4.1 iv)) with respect to residential development intensity adjacent to arterial roads that buildings shall be located close to the street and designed to be street-oriented;

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

  •    D. Ailles, York Developments;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves the regulations of the Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(23)) Zone, Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4(36)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-1(17)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-3(5)) Zone, Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(12)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(62)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(65)) Zone, and Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(50)) Zone portion of this application for the following reasons:

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

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

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the North Lambeth and Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

  •    the recommended zoning is appropriate and will permit dwellings on lots fronting neighbourhood streets more flexibility in design and efficiency while maintaining consistency with the planned vision of the Neighbourhood Place Type and built form that contributes to a sense of place and character;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council refuses the regulations of the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to delete the Front Yard Setback, Main Dwelling 4.5 metres (Maximum) regulation from the Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-3(23)) Zone, Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4(36)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-1(17)) Zone, Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-3(5)) Zone, Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6(12)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(62)) Zone, Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(64)), Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(65)) Zone, and Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(50)) Zone for the following reasons:

  •    the requested amendment does not meet the intent of The London Plan City Building and Design polices; and,

  •    the requested amendment does not meet the intent of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (Section 20.5.4.1 iv)) with respect to residential development intensity adjacent to arterial roads that buildings shall be located close to the street and designed to be street-oriented.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   140-142 Wellington Street - Request to Remove Properties from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2022-08-22 -Staff Report - 140-142 Wellington Street - 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, the properties located at 140 and 142 Wellington Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   Demolition Request for Heritage Designated Property at 520 Ontario Street, Old East Heritage Conservation District

2022-08-22 -Staff Report - 520 Ontario Street

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, the request to demolish the building on the heritage designated property at 520 Ontario Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    interim protection measures, including fencing, be implemented by the applicant to ensure that the property remains in a clean and protected state following the demolition and prior to construction of a new building; and,

b)    a Heritage Alteration Permit be required following the demolition of the existing dwelling to ensure that the replacement dwelling is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Old East Heritage Conservation District;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated August 2, 2022 from K. Madlener, with respect to these matters:

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   767 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9499)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 767 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9499)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Phuc Minh Tran, relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential (R1-7) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_));

it being noted that the following urban design and site plan matters were raised during the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

a)    provide an alternative building typology/form such as 3-storey townhouse or 3 storey stacked townhouse with grade level units or access to alleviate the following concerns:

i)    break down the proposed large building massing and architecture to more identifiable individual units (e.g., townhouses) as opposed to a large single massing;

ii)    consider a flat-roofed typology to accommodate a three-storey form with grade level accessible units;

iii)    provide enhanced East and West side elevations (more windows, massing and articulation) reducing the blank facades proposed;

iv)    provide weather protection (e.g., canopies/shade) above balconies and the entrance steps;

v)    increase the accessibility to the ground floor units by reducing the excessive number of steps to ground floor. If stacked units are proposed, further steps can be incorporated within the unit and ground floor units can be accessed from the street with minimum number of steps;

vi)    robust tree planting on west, east and south property lines;

vii)    board on board fencing on the west, east and south property lines to the maximum height allowed by the Fence By-law;

viii)    ground oriented lighting within the site; and,

ix)    garbage system that will minimize odors such as a deep collection site;

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

  •    a communication dated May 16, 2022 from D. and S. Berberich;

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from R. and M. Wilson; and,

  •    a communication dated May 16, 2022 from S. and C. Cunningham;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant;

  •    S. Berberich, 768 Dalkeith Avenue;

  •    D. Berberich, 768 Dalkeith Avenue;

  •    R. Wilson, 105 Wilson Crescent; and,

  •    M. Wilson, 105 Wilson Crescent;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   A Portion of 4519, 4535 & 4557 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9433)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 4519-4557 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9433)

Moved by A. Hopkins

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 Farhi Holdings Corp., relating to a portion of the properties located at 4519, 4535 and 4557 Colonel Talbot Road:

a)    the proposed revised, attached, by-law (Appendix “A”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to change the zoning on a portion of the subject property FROM an Arterial Commercial (AC) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-11) Zone and a holding Residential R1 (h-4.R1-11) Zone TO a Residential R6-5 Special Provision (R6-5()) Zone, Residential R8-4 Special Provision (R8-4()) Zone, a holding Residential R6-5 Special Provision (h-().R6-5()) Zone, a holding Residential R8-4 Special Provision (h-().R8-4()) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i)    provide the communal amenity space for the stacked townhomes, with a direct pedestrian connection from the stacked townhomes, to be maintained under the same ownership as the stacked townhomes;

ii)    proposed 2.5 metre setbacks to only apply to the northwest corner of the development. Proposed 0.5 m landscape strip to only apply to the southwest portion of the internal drive;

iii)    provide enhanced architectural details on the end units that are highly visible from Colonel Talbot Road including wrapping materials, windows, and porches. Break up the width of the end unit facades through vertical articulation and material changes that create a more human scale rhythm (i.e. every 5-7m). The composition of the front façade is very successful at achieving this - consider replicating this rhythm on the side facades);

iv)    incorporate architectural elements and massing on the buildings located adjacent to Dingman Creek so that is compatible with the feature. Consider orienting the buildings to take advantage of their location adjacent to the creek;

v)    provide enhanced architectural details for portions of the end units that are highly visible from the main gateways into the development (i.e. 53, 80) and from the Dingman Creek corridor (i.e., 1, 54, 59, 60, 66, 67). (Note: unit numbers may change as a result of pathways and units being shifted or reconfigured);

vi)    consider more variation in the colours and materials across townhouse blocks and between individual units to create unique identities for blocks and units, add character and assist with wayfinding;

vii)    connect the proposed city sidewalk (in its ultimate location) to the existing sidewalk to the north as an interim condition prior to any future redevelopment of the neighbourhood sites or reconstruction of the road;

viii)    shift the parking to ensure it is in line with or behind the proposed building. Use landscaping or low landscape walls to screen any parking that is visible from Colonel Talbot Road;

ix)    provide details and expected use of the proposed concrete pad located behind the stacked townhouses. All outdoor garbage storage should be fully enclosed; 

x)    the applicant needs to be aware that The London Plan Policy 399 will be applied to the development. The London Plan Policy 399 requires 1 replacement tree to be planted for every 10cm dbh [diameter at breast height] removed for development.  A tree preservation report will be required at Site Plan to determine the number of replacement trees; and,

xi)    convey of all or part of the zoned Open Space lands to the City;

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning generally implements the site concept submitted with the application. As part of the application review process a revised site plan concept was submitted with minor revisions including a new interior side yard setback and rear yard setback of 2.5 metres whereas 5.0m was proposed, a new density of 83 units per hectare whereas 81 was proposed, and a landscaped area of 0.5m whereas 1.5m was proposed in the notice of application and public meeting;

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:

 

  •    N. Dyjach, SBM 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 policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the 1989 Official Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and supports the City’s commitment to reducing and mitigating climate change by supporting efficient use of existing urban lands and infrastructure and regeneration of existing neighbourhoods to limit outward growth;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, Schedule 6, Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended holding provision will ensure that all issues regarding hydrogeology, erosion setback maintenance, erosion structural, geotechinical setbacks and all matters relating to slope stability will be dealt with through the site plan approval process to the satisfaction of the City of London and the Upper Thames Conservation Authority (UTRCA).     (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   604 Beaverbrook Avenue (OZ-9483)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 604 Beaverbrook Avenue (OZ-9483)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 604 Beaverbrook Developments Inc. relating to the property located at 604 Beaverbrook Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend The London Plan to create a specific area policy in the Neighbourhoods Place Type at 604 Beaverbrook Avenue to permit a four (4) storey stacked townhouse development and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan, and The London Plan for the City of London as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision Bonus (h-18.R6-5*B-_) Zone;

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

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

ii)    include enough space for collection access to recycling and waste; 

iii)    provide glass railings that are bird friendly safe, or similar material to reduce the visual impact;

iv)    ensure there is a minimum setback of 2.5m from parking to habitable space;

v)    ensure that for the area between the proposed structure and the roadway, there is a design that balances privacy and light (e.g. lattice fence, brise-soleil structure, perennial plants, hardscaping etc.); and,

vi)    ensure pedestrian circulation and access refinements are constructed in accordance with the Accessibility Review Checklist;

c)    the Bonus Zone shall be enabled through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a high-quality residential stacked townhouse development, with a maximum height of four (4) storeys, 32 dwelling units and a maximum density of 92 units per hectare, which substantively implements the Site Plan and Elevations appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law in return for the following facilities, services, and matters:

  1.    Exceptional Building Design

i)    a contemporary modern design with architectural details including high-quality materials, horizontal and vertical elements, and large windows, which create a design complementary to adjacent development; and,

ii)    a front facing façade that establishes a built edge with primary building entrance and a pedestrian friendly public realm;

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of two(2) 3-bedroom residential units will be provided for affordable housing; one unit within each block;

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 is set at 50 years from the point of initial occupancy;

iv)    the proponent enters 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;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning generally implements the site concept submitted with the application. As part of the application review process a revised site plan concept was submitted with minor revisions including a new interior side yard setback of 3.0m whereas 3.2m was proposed and a parking rate of 1.0 spaces per unit whereas 1.1 spaces was proposed in the notice of application and public meeting;

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:

 

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd; and,

  •    J. Heddegard, 320 Sugarcreek Trail;

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

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended bonus zone for the subject site will provide a public benefit of affordable housing units, and a quality design standard to be implemented through a subsequent Site Plan application.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   712 Base Line Road East (Z-9474)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 712 Base Line Road East (Z-9474)

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 Wellington Gate Inc., c/o Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 712 Base Line Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 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 Community Shopping Area (CSA3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision Bonus (h*R9-7()*B-()) Zone; 

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of a mixed-use commercial/office and residential apartment building, with a maximum height of 16 storeys or 52.6 metres, 150 residential units, 547 square metres of commercial and office uses at grade, and a maximum mixed-density of 654 units per hectare; the development will generally implement the following design criteria:  

 

  1.    Design Standards

the building design and site plan will be bonused for features which serve to support the City’s objectives of promoting a high standard of design, to be implemented through a development agreement:

i)    Site Layout

a)    provide for additional outdoor amenity areas within the west interior side yard and front yard, which includes transit-oriented amenities such as benches and bike racks close to the principal entrance;

b)    provide direct and convenient access throughout the site for pedestrians from the public sidewalks on Baseline Road East to primary building entrances. Pedestrian circulation should consider desire lines to the intersection of Baseline Road and Wellington Road and to the main transit station;

c)    provide for a front yard setback of 2-4m for more urban streetscape treatment with landscaping and trees (large planter beds with edge curb) along Baseline Road East;

d)    provide a functional forecourt leading to the main entrance of the proposed building; and,

e)    provide a functional drop off area;

ii)    Ground Floor Design and Uses

a)    active building façade should be directed to public streets as a priority. Additional active uses may line the internal streets / drive aisles and priority should be given to highly visible areas from key entry points;

b)    locate the principal residential building entrance (lobby) on the Baseline Road East-facing elevation;

c)    differentiate the residential lobby entrance from the commercial unit entrances with architectural features such as canopies, signage, lighting, increase in glazing, double doors, framing, materials, etc.; and,

d)    back of house, service, garage and loading areas are to be accessed from internal streets / drive aisles, incorporated internal to the building as much as possible and screened from view;

iii)    Podium Design

a)    parking for high-rise development should be provided mainly underground, or where that is not possible, located in the podium and wrapped with active uses along street frontages. Minimize the exposure of the above ground structured parking along Baseline Road by providing residential units, amenity spaces, and/or providing a treatment which allows for windows and views into the building’s interior areas disguising the parking garage;

b)    include a minimum 5 metre step-back at the 4th floor along Base Line Road to enhance the pedestrian-oriented street wall;

iv)    Tower Design

a)    design high-rise building (above 8 stories) as slender towers (seek to achieve a maximum floor plate size of up to 1000 square meters within a 1.5:1 length: width ratio) in order to reduce “slab-like” appearance of the tower, reduce shadow impacts, reduce obstruction of sky views and to be less imposing on neighbouring properties and public spaces;

b)    design the tower to include a high degree of fenestration in order to add interest and break-up the massing of the building;

c)    increase the size & scale of proposed windows and use material change, balconies and articulation to break up the facades;

d)    include a high proportion of glazing and modulation such as projections/recesses which use material differentiation in order to break up the consistent vertical plane and massing of the tower;

e)    design and distinguish the top of the buildings (i.e. top 4-5 floors) through an articulated roof form, step-backs, cornices, material change and/or other architectural details and screen/integrate the mechanical and elevator penthouses into an architecture of the building;

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of 10% of the lift (12 affordable housing units based on 156 total units) will be provided in the development, representative of the bedroom and unit mix of the overall building;

ii)    rents not exceeding 80% of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Average Market Rent (AMR) for the London Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) at the time of building occupancy; where AMR is defined at the one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom rate for the London CMA at the time of building occupancy;

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

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

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

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

i)    consider the incorporation of patio or forecourt space that spills out into the front yard setback(s) to further activate the space and provide an amenity for tenant businesses; 

ii)    explore additional roof top amenity areas at various levels in addition to the private rooftop amenity areas proposed; 

iii)    provide grading plans and particularly explain/articulate the building interfaces at the West and North edges; 

iv)    explore opportunities to increase the ground floor presence on the site to accommodate active uses along the North Façade of the building and explore opportunities to direct the principal residential building entrance (lobby) closer to Wellington Road for convenient access to the transit corridor; 

v)    consider relocating the Central Alarm and Control Facilities (CACF) room to the adjacent internal service block on the ground floor such that the residential lobby appears open from the street; 

vi)    consider locating all podium level parking behind active uses (such as residential units fronting Base Line Road), underground or elsewhere on the site; 

vii)    consider an addition of a podium floor (4 storey podium) with enlarged podium area along the North edge to integrate parking and provide active facades (residential units) along Baseline Road East; 

viii)    consider moving some parking to another basement level or explore opportunities for access and parking agreements with the neighbouring property to reduce the number of parking spaces required onsite; and

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning implements the site concept submitted with the application;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022, from M. Poddar, Planner II, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.;

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

 

  •    M. Poddar, SBM Ltd., on behalf of the applicant; and,

  •    P. Green;

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 promotes intensification, redevelopment and a compact form in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.  The amendment will provide for a range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents, by promoting a land use pattern, density and a mix of uses that serve to minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support the development of viable choices and plans for public transit and other alternative transportation modes;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is appropriate for the site and surrounding context and will contribute to housing options within a Rapid Transit Corridor; 

  •    the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; and,

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   1737 Richmond Street (Z-9470)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 1737 Richmond Street (OZ-9470)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Richmond Hyland Inc., c/o Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 1737 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(1)) Zone, TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus (BDC1()*B-()) Zone; 

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate a high-quality development comprised of a mixed-use apartment building with a maximum height of 22 storeys (80m), and a maximum density of 571 units per hectare, which generally implements the Site Plan, Renderings, Elevations and Views attached as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law, and will also implement the following outstanding design criteria:

  1.    Additional Building and Site Design Requirements

i)    reduce the high-rise portion (above 8 stories) as a slender tower (maximum floor plate size of up to 1000 square meters within a 1.5:1 length: width ratio) in order to reduce any possible “slab-like” appearance, shadow impacts, obstruction of sky views and to be less imposing on neighbouring properties and public spaces;

ii)    articulate the podium facades particularly on the east and west facades with recesses, projections, balconies and terraces, alternating brick tones, fenestration to provide depth and variation in the built form and to enhance the pedestrian environment and break up the massing;

iii)    reduce the blank wall facades on the west elevation ground level facing North Centre Road. Increase visual interest through the use of increased glazing, public wall art, or additional door access. Provide windows for clear sight lines facing North Centre Road from the section of abutting parking garage where the accessibility parking space is located;

iv)    provide a separate key access door to the bike storage room facing North Centre Rd for improved bicycle accessibility in and out of the building and improved streetscape activity;

v)    connect this separate bike storage entrance to the public sidewalk;

vi)    utilize a decorative or public art wall feature and treatment to address the southwest corner and provide visual interest while breaking up the podium massing and establishing a sense of place through this unique feature;

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of 22 units based on 10% of the “lift” of the number of units beyond 150 units per hectare (based on 297 total units) be dedicated to affordable rental housing in exchange for the granting of increased height and density. The mix of the dedicated affordable rental units should be reflective of the unit mix for the 22-storey apartment building;

ii)    the affordable housing units should be evenly distributed throughout the individual buildings to the greatest extent possible;

iii)    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;

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

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

it being noted that the following site and building design criteria, will also be addressed as part of the site plan submission:

i)    explore ways to reduce the tower floor plate size that can further minimize the shadow impact on the 5th floor amenity space; 

ii)    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 Fanshawe Park Road and North Centre Road in order to activate the street edge; 

iii)    the ground floor commercial units shall provide for a store-front design with primary entrances facing Fanshawe Park Road and the internal shopping centre. 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; 

iv)    provide functional primary entrances (double doors) for the commercial units along both Fanshawe Park Road and North Centre Road with walkways connecting the entrances to the City Sidewalk; 

v)    ensure common outdoor amenity space and landscaping at ground level will include additional elements such as benches and landscaping; 

vi)    lay-by to be removed and the area restored with enhanced landscaping and pedestrian connections to North Centre Road provided;

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from S. Rasanu, Planner, SBM Ltd. and D. Traher, Westdell Development Corp;

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

 

  •    S. Rasanu, SBM Ltd., on behalf of Westdell Development Corp;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment secures units for affordable housing through the bonus zone; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Council adopted Masonville  Secondary Plan.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue (OZ-9500)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue (OZ-9500)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

hat, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes, relating to properties located at 21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend The London Plan to add a site specific policy for 21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue in Policy 1077 _) to allow stacked townhouses on a Neighbourhood Street in a Neighbourhoods Place Type and amend Map 7- Specific Policy Areas to add the subject site;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision Bonus (h-17. h-100. R5-7(_)*B- _) Zone with holding provisions to address sanitary, storm and water servicing and access; a special provision to permit a balcony encroachment minimum of 4.26 metres instead of the required 6.0 metres in the exterior side yard and a Bonus Zone to allow an increase in the maximum density permitted and a reduction in parking required in return for affordable dwelling units and a larger common amenity space area; and, 

the Bonus Zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of stacked townhouse buildings at a maximum density of 91 units per hectare (80 units, 4 units which are affordable) instead of 60 units per hectare, a reduced parking requirement from 120 parking spaces to 91 parking spaces and provision of additional landscaped open space area/larger common amenity area, which substantively implements the Site Plan, Renderings, and Views, appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Schedule “1” to the amending by-law and provides for the following:

  1.    Provision of Affordable Housing

i)    a total of four (4) residential units will be provided for affordable housing; three, one bedroom units and one, two bedroom unit within two of the four proposed townhouse blocks with a maximum of two units in each building;

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;

  1.    Common Amenity Space

i)    provide for an appropriately sized and located ground level outdoor amenity space for the number of residents anticipated;

ii)    provide 8.2 m² per unit of landscaped open space in place of the City standard of 5.0 m², which represents an 11.3% increase;

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

i)    ensure that adequate functional common amenity space is provided;

ii)    ensure Stacked Townhouse Block D has regard for the corner location at Meadowlily Road North and Norlan Avenue;

iii)    screen surface parking exposed to Meadowlily Road;

iv)    increase the sidewalk width abutting parking areas to 2.1 metres;

v)    provide a minimum of 1.5 metres from property boundaries to parking areas, it being noted that the full setback may not be attainable on the north side immediately adjacent to the hydro corridor without impacting the ability to deliver the minimum parking requirements;

vi)    provide 3 metre landscaped islands every 15 parking stalls;

vii)    relocate Canada Post mailbox to more centralized location;

viii)    reduce amount of site asphalt and hardscape; and,

ix)    improve pedestrian connections to rear parking area, common amenity area and both abutting roads;

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.;

  •    G. Mariano, 4 Meadowlily Road; and,

  •    P. Green;

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, including affordable housing;

  •    the recommended amendments generally conform to the in-force Neighbourhoods policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the use, intensity and form of future development anticipated along a Neighbourhood Street. A special policy has been recommended to allow stacked townhouses on a Neighbourhood Street in a Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •    adding a special policy to allow a stacked townhouse development at a higher density is appropriate because the property has a number of favourable locational attributes for residential uses; it is large enough to accommodate the proposal, is at the intersection of two neighbourhood streets, is separated from the single family neighbourhood by an intervening hydro corridor, is across the street from open space, , and its access point is approximately 240 metres from Hamilton Road, a Civic Boulevard, and close to Highbury Avenue, an Expressway, for easy vehicle access.

  •    the recommended amendments generally conform to the Low Density Residential policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the permitted height and density of future development as a result of density bonusing under Section19.4.4; 

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of sites within the Built Area Boundary in The London Plan with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

  •    the recommended holding provisions ensure adequate services are provided before development occurs and recommendations to the site plan approval authority ensure the development will include all the elements which comprise a good infill development.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   183 and 197 Ann Street - Proposed Designation By-laws Under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act - Consideration of Objections

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 183 and 197 Ann Street - Complete

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the designation of built resources located at municipal addresses 183 Ann Street and 197 Ann Street, located on the consolidated parcel legally described as – LOTS 4, 5, 6 & 7 AND PART LOT 3, SOUTH SIDE ANN STREET PLAN 183(W)DESIGNATED AS PART 1, PLAN 33R-20622, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Notice of Objection, dated June 15, 2022, from York Developments appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “A” be RECEIVED for consideration;

b)    the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the built resources at municipal addresses 183 Ann Street and 197 Ann Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act as set out in Resolution (2022-D09/R01) (4.2/9/PEC) on May 4, 2022 BE REAFFIRMED;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022, to designate the built resource at 197 Ann Street under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18. for the reasons outlined in Appendix B of the associated staff report; and,

d)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022, to designate the built resource at 183 Ann Street under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18. for the reasons outlined in Appendix C of the associated staff report;

it being noted that this matter has been considered by the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (now the Community Advisory Committee on Planning) and public notice has been completed with respect to designation in compliance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act;

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

  •    a communication dated August 17, 2022 from AM Valastro, North Talbot Community;

  •    a communication dated August 17, 2022 from S. Olivastri;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from E. Mitchell;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from N. Stevens;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from J. and J. Sayles;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from J. Fooks;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from D, Fraser;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from B. Benedict;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from J. Jacobson;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from D. Ferreira;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from V. White;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from R. McDowell;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from J. McDowell;

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from A. Soufan, President, York Developments; and,

  •    a communication dated August 18, 2022 from V. Zervakos, Director, Leasing, York Developments.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That A. Soufan, York Developments, BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the proposed designation of the properties located at 183 and 197 Ann Street.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road (OZ-9263 / Z-9264)

2022-08-22 - Staff Report - 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Century Centre Development Inc., relating to the properties located at 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road:

a)  the proposed, attached, by-laws BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022; and,

b)  the staff report dated August 22, 2022 entitled “Century Centre Developments Inc. - 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated August 19, 2022 from M. Campbell, Senior Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Pursuant to section 2.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, section 33.9 of the said by-law be suspended for the purpose of permitting the meeting to proceed beyond 11:00 PM.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convenes, in Closed Session, from 11:06 PM to 11:15 PM.

6.1   London Plan Site Specific Appeals - Instructions

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:16 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 (7 hours, 8 minutes)

Welcome everyone to the 14th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupinec, and the Atawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today.

As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meeting upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Committee members, I hope we can have a dinner break around the 630 time slot.

So I just want you to all know that’s what we’re aiming for and to advise the public as well. Disclosures of pecuniary interest, we see none. Moving on to the consent items. Committee members, do you wish any of them to be pulled?

Councilor Turner. I have a question that might end up resulting in pulling it. So it’s just to be safe if we can do the 2.2. The 2.2 as being pulled?

Yeah, if we could, just to be safe in case we get an answer. And then moving on to looking for a motion to prove the consent items that are remaining, which is 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. Moved by Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by Councillor Lehman. Any questions, comments from committee?

Maybe I’ll just go right to Councillor Turner for 2.2. We’re on the consent right now. So I have comments on 2.2 or 2.3 and 2.4. So we’ve pulled 2.2.

Right, yeah. So 2.2 will come after the consent, which Councillor Hill and Lehman just put on the floor. Okay, and then 2.3, any questions for 2.3? Sorry about that and just taking a little bit of slow time here.

Any comments on the other items? Councillor Turner. Madam Chair, with respect to 2.3. When last we met on the Byron Pitts gravel pits, secondary plan, we were met with some concerns about the landowners and the possible uses.

Have we heard anything more because it doesn’t seem to be addressed or discussed too much in the report here? And it seems that I’m assuming by reading through the lines that those questions have been resolved and we’re now at the point that we can move forward from our pause a few years back. I’ll go to staff. Through you, Madam Chair, it’s Bruce Page.

We are just, excuse me, reinitiating the secondary plan. It was put on a little bit of pause with COVID, the realignment of commissioner’s road and its EA being bumped up. The ministry has approved the A, which approves the alignment to come through a portion of the gravel pits and hooking up to the corner of baseline and commissioners. So that, or sorry, commissioners and yeah, baseline.

So that alignment’s there. It curves out towards the gravel pit to the west and then connects back in. So that issue has been resolved. And we have, as mentioned in the report, we’ve gone through a couple of public consultations with some concept plans and we’ll be working with those concept plans to come up with a preferred land use plan.

And that’s what we’re hoping to bring back later this fall to the public to engage them and get some comments from them. Councilor Terry. Yeah, through you, Madam Chair, I think Mr. Page.

So specifically, I recall that some landowners had some questions about whether the site itself was developable for housing. And that seemed to be some back and forth. So we’ve had some letters from some of the interested parties and stakeholders involved. And that seemed to kind of precipitate that pause, I guess COVID and the realignment were a couple of the other things in there.

Are those still live issues or have they been resolved? Mr. Page. Yes, again, through Madam Chair, the portion of development has been defined through some of the background studies.

We’ve identified and it shows on all the land use plans. There’s a red line there and that shows where it can be serviced by gravity. Those lands could be serviced by gravity and that’s what we’ve established is there would be no pumping stations and that we’re trying to have all sanitary services through the gravity feed. So the development would occur portions of the site and along the periphery of the site.

So there was no proposed residential development within the what we’ll call the core area of the gravel pit or the extracted area of the gravel pit. Wonderful, Madam Chair, just one more question. Just regards to the bank’s follows within that area. Have those been delineated and are there other management plans associated with that prior to moving forward or is this all kind of part of the secondary plan discussion?

Madam Chair, the banks follow themselves. The issue it’s been identified, the gravel pits themselves still have to be rehabilitated and for the licensees to surrender the license, they have to satisfy administrative natural resources and forestry. They’ll be one of the parties that we’ll be looking at determining and ensuring that the site is safe and how that works or what the outcome is that. We’re not sure.

The secondary plan itself won’t have a mitigation plan for the bank’s follows. It would be something that would be done post-secondary plan. There may be some recommendations to try to potentially re-incorporate the habitat in. Right now where the bank’s follows are located on that one bank, it’s a sheer drop.

I think it’s about 60 years. It’s quite a significant drop. And the ministry would have to sign off on a stable slope and whether or not the sheer drop wouldn’t satisfy them or not, that’s what we’re going to be looking at. Councillor Turner.

Oh, thank you. And on that, I’d imagine the city will be right while I recognize it’s a MNRF. Well, the city will be involved in part of that plan, even though it’s outside of the secondary plan involvement. But the desired department have an integration with the MNRF on establishing that plan.

Do you imagine, we have in the past, we’ve engaged them, they’re part of our steering committee. The hope is that we can try to keep some of the topography of the way that it is. Currently, the reclamation plan for that portion of the site where the bank’s followers are located is to be filled to grade. So that’s 60 meter valley.

If the plan exists, the remediation plan exists as it’s currently approved, that entire area would be filled in. That would be a requirement for them to get their license rendered. So what we’re doing is working with the ministry to come up with a plan that someone meets their needs and then if there have to be amendments done to the remediation plan, they would have involved with the secondary plan. And that would ensure that the amendments to those remediation plans would meet the intent of the secondary plan.

So they have been involved as part of the steering committee and they’ll continue to start the steering committee. Three, Madam Chair, thank you very much. I think I’m looking forward to seeing this progress. It’s one of the things they started to talk to us about almost immediately after our election in the 2014.

So it’s good to see this advancing, thanks. Thank you for the questions, Councillor Turner. There are any other questions from committee members on receiving the Byron secondary plan. I see none if the committee will allow me.

I just have one question as a follow-up to Councillor Turner’s question. And there’s great public interest on what happens in the Byron pits. And I’m glad to see that there’s gonna be a community consultation. In fact, we’ve got two of them coming up and then the last one, which is gonna be at the planning and environment committee in the first quarter of 2023.

Any idea when we can see these community sessions come forward, Mr. Page, or? Yes, we don’t have any exact dates. What we’re hoping for is that the preferred land use plan with some of the draft policies would be coming forward later in the fall, most likely post-election.

And that’s where we start with the engagement. So we’ll have a well-designed preferred land use plan that’ll take into account some of the dialogue that we’ve had with the public in the past and drafting up some of the policy so we can get some wrong and exact comments and then lead us to the next public meeting. That’ll be hopefully in the earlier part of the first quarter and then the public meeting, we’re guessing it’ll probably be the latter part of the first quarter of 2022 or 2023. Thank you for that, Mr.

Page. Any other questions on the consent items on Soot Turner? Nobody else says to me, I just had a question on the building division report. I think that you can proceed.

So thank you for the report, Mr. Krakors. Again, I was welcome and really fascinated to watch the trends on where things are moving, especially in the building. Congratulations on the inspections and 100% compliance in terms of meeting those building inspections, that’s great work.

The thing that I was most interested in here was I guess the number of applications in progress in our process and how that also relates to new single and new semi-dwelling units. So we saw a decrease of about 36% over the same period last year in terms of a single and semi-detached dwellings. But then in the next paragraph, it talks about the number of applications in progress in process. And this one’s interesting because I noticed that the number of applications is relatively the same.

So that is the end of the end of June 2022, 1,040 applications are in process. Compared to this time last year, there was 1,012 applications. So roughly the same number of applications in process this time point of the year versus last. The difference, however, in the value and the number of units is staggering.

The value difference from last year was 810 million this year is 1.6 billion. So it’s twice as much. And the number of dwelling units moves from 1,387 to 3,288. That seems to be compared to the paragraph before talking about a 36% decrease in singles and semis.

It seems to be a significant focus in multi-unit residential development. And especially on a scale that doubles in terms of value and almost it comes close to tripling. That’s two and a half times more in terms of number of units. Just wondering if there’s some comment on that and what the implications are for your division.

If I could go to Mr. Kacors or— Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you to Councilor Turner, thank you for the question and for the comments as well. I want to emphasize or clarify that the 36% decrease is actually associated with the permits that were issued already.

As far as the applications in process, that number does vary because we, what we do is we take a snapshot in time and it’s basically what’s in the hopper. So what are we looking at before these are actually issued? And as far as the numbers go, the construction value that, again, depends on the type of applications we’ve received. So you may recall something like Maple Leaf food, for example, $35 million construction value, one permit alone can change that value significantly.

As far as the dwelling units go, yes, there is a decrease in the applications. We are seeing things tapering off a bit. But again, in al fairness, this is a snapshot compared to the previous year alone. And the previous year being what we call an all time record in the last 21 years, we are definitely expecting to see a reduction in the numbers compared to last year.

But what we’ve also done is we also have some 2020 data, excuse me, where 2020 was the second best year. And we are pretty much at par with those numbers. So I’m not sure if that answers the question through you, Madam Chair? Councillor Turner.

Through you, Madam Chair, thank you, Mr. Kacors. I guess specifically, it’s just the relative, just in those permits, I recognize that it’s not a huge number for us to be able to identify trends in the singles and semi-detached. However, in the total, the net number of applications and process in the dwelling unit numbers, those ones seem relative to each other.

And you’re right, Mr. Kacors, that one permit of a high value could really skew that a little bit, but the number of dwelling units themselves, 3,288 versus 1387 last year marks a fair increase in that. And it would seem to indicate that there might be a shift. Sorry, I didn’t look deep enough into the tables themselves, but it would seem that there’s a shift into multi-unit versus singles and semis.

Is that a fair read of it? Or are we seeing kind of just a normalized trend and maybe just a general bit of a waning compared to that record record here? Mr. Kacors.

  • Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, through you, the last few years, we have seen an increase primarily in townhouse, building permits as well as apartment buildings. I don’t have an analysis done for this year to see if that trend is carrying on or not.

Yeah, I hope that helps. Councilor Turner? Any other questions from committee members? I’ve seen just to follow up, Mr.

Kacors on the building division report for June. And I know it’s pretty busy times there, trying to get all these permits done. And just if you can make a comment on how are you managing? Thank you, Madam Chair.

How are we managing? That’s a great question. I can say that we are being pushed to our limits as far as staffing is concerned. And it’s not necessarily the number of staff.

It’s the caliber of staff in terms of the amount of training that’s required to be invested in order for staff to perform their work. I can say that as of the end of May this year, we had 82% of our positions filled. And at the end of August, with the arrival of two new building inspectors, we will be at 93%. But again, the issue here is not the number of staff that we are attracting, but again, it’s the level of training that’s required.

And that is taking a toll on staff in terms of keeping up. Construction, as a lot of people know, is cyclical. And based on some of the trends that we’re seeing and some graphs that we’ve prepared, it looks like we’ve peaked last year and we’re sort of kind of on the downside of things this year. But again, it’s very hard to forecast.

Thank you. And with that, I’ll go to committee to vote on the consent items in front of us. You know, the mayor has joined us as well, or has not. Okay.

Close in to vote. The motion carries five to zero. Point two, which is being pulled. It’s a three year extension for three, four, nine, three kernel double road.

Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just through the red line document, I had a question for staff, I believe it’s in number 55. There’s straight through on sidewalks and bikeways through clause 55 and 56.

We’re moving the requirement for two-sided sidewalks on street C street F and sidewalk links on F. Is that because those sidewalks or those streets no longer exist in the updated draft plan or was there another reason for it? Through you, Madam Chair. It’s Larry Motram speaking.

Yes, that’s correct. The streets with the sidewalks on both sides have now been included within the registered phases of that subdivision plan and have now been completed. Councillor Turner. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t removing sidewalk requirements, but it’s good to hear that they’ve been executed and we don’t need to worry about that. So that’s helpful and that’s was my only question. So thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other questions? I see none. I do have a quick question through the chair to staff on the three year extension. And I guess this development, it’s situated right around the ESA and the channel and a lot of sensitivity in the area.

And I know there’s been interest to get some public signage put in the area. And wondering if, how does that process look like as we move forward with this three year extension? Okay, Madam Chair, is there a Montram speaking again? And the signage in conjunction with that natural feature being the stream corridor would be looked at as part of the detailed design of the subdivision plan.

And so once that detailed design and engineering drawings have been accepted and staff brings forward special provisions for the subdivision agreement, we would then have the details of signage in conjunction with the multi-use pathway along that east side of the stream corridor for you at that time. So that would be done through the subdivision agreement? That’s correct. Thank you.

Any other questions? I see none and with that, we can proceed to vote. Oh, sorry, I need a mover and seconder. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So we’re gonna move on to our schedule one public participation meeting for the zoning by law for patio restrictions and looking to open up the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

We’ll go to staff. There is a presentation, Mr. Hefferton. Good afternoon to members of the committee and the public, Mark Hefferton for working policy section today to discuss those changes to zoning bylaw with regards to outdoor.

How is my audio going? Yeah, I think we can all hear it. It started a little weak, but it’s getting better as she’s speaking. So let me start off by distinguishing the three different types of outdoor patios.

This is only bylaw section 4.18 outdoor patio associated with a restaurant or tavern. So I would like to just do a brief overview of the three different types of patios in London. First is a permanent, what we would often associate with a patio, so a permanent structure, which goes through a zoning review, location, parking requirements. So essentially it is what restaurants and taverns are required to go through to obtain a business license from the city.

The second is a seasonal temporary patio. This is a relatively new form of patio. So it essentially allows parking lots to be turned into street activated spaces, outdoor patios that involve temporary tables, chairs. These were not previously permitted forms of patios up until March 2021.

So they were added introduced to assist restaurants and businesses during pandemic closures and lockdowns. It’s important to note that over the past few years we have received minimal complaints with regards to these types of relaxed patio regulations and these seasonal outdoor patios. The third form of outdoor patios would be city boulevard patios. So those are typically patios that are built on public land, temporarily over, say, a public road or city right away.

The most common example would be patios that are sort of built out, straddling over a sidewalk and some instances holding the city roadway. With regards to the proposed changes to the by-law, we’re looking to do two things. First of all, impacting all three types of patios as well, this proposed by-law is proposing to make changes to the dates of operation, specifically for temporary or seasonal outdoor patios. This report is in response to some council resolutions from April 12th, June 14th, and believe that it’s occurred in July 5th, municipal, these municipal council resolutions directed staff to report back with options to amend the capacity restrictions for all forms of outdoor patios and to review temporary seasonal outdoor patio regulations that were put in place during the briefly summarized, the recommended amendments to the zoning by-law and then I’ll get it to the actual amendments.

So the recommended amendment will remove capacity for all forms of outdoor patios from the zoning by-law, also amend the operation date range, which is currently contained in section 4.8, subsection 6 of the zoning by-law and add these 30 days, which are essentially like flexible days that businesses can operate within the closed down period. And the final summary, or rather the final component of this, it’s only by-law is that no seasonal outdoor patio shall be located within an accessible parking space. So just to give a little bit of a bigger, broader context, staff are asked to review the zoning by-law to allow for greater operational flexibility for local businesses. So that is why staff are proposing to remove the capacity limits for all forms of outdoor patios.

Attio sizes would then be dictated or influenced by the other rigs contained in the zoning by-law. That includes things like accessible parking spaces, proximity from residential uses, dry vials, et cetera. It’s important to note that to the committee that the proposed zoning by-law amendment has been reviewed against the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and that the recommended action is consistent with the London Plan or London’s official plan. So in fear of heating myself too much, these are the actual recommended changes to the zoning by-law as included in Appendix A.

So city staff is suggesting to remove the component of the by-law in section 4.18, removing the section that says, no outdoor patio shall accommodate more than 50%. The license capacity of the restaurant with which the patio is associated or 50 persons whichever is greater. Staff is then suggesting to add an outstanding sections 4.18, subsection 6A and subsection 6B, temporary seasonal outdoor patios and associated structures and empertunces are permitted between November 16th, March 14th and for 30 days but not for more than three consecutive days. So essentially that’s the closed down period, November 16th and March 14th but what we’re proposing is to allow for special events that should not go on longer than three consecutive days.

For example, holiday parties in December, New Year’s Eve at January, Chinese New Year and January 21st, Valentine’s Day in mid-February, et cetera. And finally, adding to the zoning by-law, no temporary/seasonal outdoor patios shall be located within an accessible parking space and that each accessible parking space shall always be clear for parking and the removal of vehicles. And with that, that is the staff presentation. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr. Heiferson. I’ll go to committee if there are any technical questions only for now, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you to our staff.

I’m wondering if we could get some more clarity around specifically the three consecutive days. I understand the recommendation is for special events but we have events like the Junos in the past. We have the Briar coming this winter. Those are week-long events.

And so I’m wondering why staff, why the recommendation is for three consecutive days. I understand the 30-day total to limit the overall amount of time they’re in place but why the three-day limitation. Mr. Heiferson.

For you, Madam Chair, these amendments have been discussed with the buildings department prior to coming to committee this afternoon. And it was recommended that we wanted to differentiate between having patios open for long stretches of time. So we felt like three days would be sufficient to capture these sort of seasonal events. However, your example of the Junos is an excellent example.

It is something that we could reconsider with our colleagues in building. I wonder if my colleague, Mr. Kakorus, in building would like to speak to that question. Mr.

Kakorus. Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you, building code does not really stipulate duration for events. So I’m not sure how to answer that question to be honest with you.

I think apologies. No, I think you’ve given us some information, Councillor Lewis, you good with that for now? Go to Councillor Turner before I go to my visiting colleagues. And we’re on technical questions.

Thank you Madam Chair. I just had two quick ones. One was related to that. What’s the reason why we would not want to just have, why we want to have some sort of restrictions over the winter in general?

Is to those patios create an impediment in some way? Do we see challenges with year round patios or are there seasonal challenges that the city encounters? So I’ll pause there. Through you, Madam Chair, it’s a good question.

As come up in our conversations internally, certainly removing of the structures for the purposes of snow clearing has been something that has been raised. But because we have the three forms of patios, the thinking is that the temporary seasonal patios are just that. There are chairs and tables that are helped businesses to expand their customer base during the fair weather. And we figured that during the sort of restrictive period that it would really be, it’s almost like a third form of patio that may or may not be necessary because a lot of places do have their permanent patios.

So that’s the logic, essentially, by allowing it year round without that restrictive period. It’s just, yeah, it kind of goes against the full theme of that went forward to the planning committee back in April, allowing this. Council to turn our, Mr. Hefajana, are you done?

I was just gonna say by allowing this type of patio to exist was really to help encourage just during the seasonal months, during the pandemic period and beyond because there’s been so few complaints about the type of patios. Council to turn it. Thank you. No, I appreciate that, Mr.

Heferton. The second question was just a question on maximum capacity. Some of the correspondence we received had concerns about creating these de facto beer gardens that might be really large. And if there was contemplation to setting ceiling on it.

Through Madam Chair, my colleague in the planning section that originally introduced this type of seasonal temporary outdoor patio last year had done just that, had suggested that there be caps on capacity. And through our discussions internally, we felt that removing that cap was a, and that being the no outdoor patio shall accommodate more than 50% of the license capacity of the restaurant with which the patio is associated or 50 persons whichever is greater. We felt that by just allowing on the other components of the zoning, be it, you know, no parking allowed in designated handicapped spaces, setbacks from residential, that that would be sufficient to restrict capacity. And we felt that removing that section that was originally introduced when the temporary seasonal patios were introduced to the planning committee last year that we are doing more to assist businesses, particularly in the downtown floor.

Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll explore that a little bit more in comments, but that’s helpful right there, thanks. Yeah, I’ll go to Councillor Lehman before I go to our visiting colleagues.

Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna follow up on Councillor Turner’s question regarding capacity. Can you clarify for me, and just an example here, a restaurant has a RC for 200, but they’re able to put 300 in a parking lot behind them.

Would they essentially be allowed to have 500, 200 inside and 300 outside? For you, Madam Chair, the idea is to remove the capacity that was originally suggested last year to the committee and to sort of lean on the other restrictions within the zone. So that would be again, side yard setbacks for residential zones and having no seasonal outdoor patterns should be located within required parking spaces for residential dwelling units, and obviously no obstruction of say fire connections, et cetera. But ultimately, if they could accommodate it on their site, the idea would be to allow the proponent, the business operator to have an extensive size patio.

Councillor Layton. So, excuse my ignorance here, but if you have, let’s say, a property that’s owned, X amount of washrooms for X amount of capacity. Would that still have implications for the amount of people that would be using those washrooms with the expanded patio plus the interior? So back to my original question.

And so you have a building zone for 200 people that are originally planned inside, and then you have a patio outside that has room for 300. Would they be still restricted to the original zoning because the washrooms provided are only based on the 200 capacity? Mr. Chair.

Sorry, through the chair, it’s Nicole Musco here for municipal compliance. Would I be able to kindly ask for a difference to Peter Kakuros in terms of washroom capacity and Ontario building code questions? If that’s okay, please? Right now we are on technical questions from committee.

Oh, okay. We will eventually get to the public participation. Oh, I’m sorry, you are on staff. Sorry, I didn’t realize you’re tight.

Yes, that’s okay. No problem at all. So you’d like to answer his question? Yeah, hi, thank you.

Madam Chair, through you, I didn’t have a chance to put my virtual hand up fast enough. So I apologize. So I need just to clarify from a technical perspective, the number of occupants inside a building is not related to zoning. It’s strictly related under the guise of the Ontario building code.

So the number of occupants, the term is called occupant load. Every building has an occupant load, depending on the type of use. The occupant load is determined primarily based on a table in the building code. And in this case, since we’re talking about restaurants, bars, and that sort of occupancy, they’re deemed as assembly uses.

And the building code gets into a lot of detail in terms of how many square meters per person is allowed inside this building, but also talks about other spaces with fixed seats. Other spaces with non-fixed seats. Is it standing space only? It talks about tables.

So there are a bunch of factors involved there with respect to determining the occupant load. Another thing the building code contemplates too is once that occupant load is determined, there is a required number of exits, and specifically the total aggregate width of those exit doors. And as you can appreciate, it’s to avoid a stampede situation where people have to back up because they literally can’t fit through the actual exit doors. So to answer, I believe it was Councillor Layman that asked the question, what happens when the outdoor patio is let’s say designed or accommodates 500 persons while inside, you only have an occupant load of 200.

The occupant load inside is what governs. So it would be up to the owner of the establishment or the tenant for that matter, or whoever’s in charge, let’s put it that way, to ensure that the occupant load maximum is not increased. It’s adhered to. So hopefully that answers the question.

I think that was quite helpful. I’ll go to Councillor Layman. That’s exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much.

Thank you for that question. I’ll go to Councillor Vanholst, welcome. Technical questions only. Right now, we haven’t gone to the public yet.

My second question is regarding the disabled parking spaces. Now, those are expected to be very close to the restaurant and also people would expect that the patio is gonna be very close to the restaurant. So is there a possibility for moving those? So for instance, if you’re gonna put the patio adjacent to the restaurant on the parking lot, it probably would be where an accessible parking spot is.

Can you then put that patio there and then move the assign some other spots to be those disabled parking spots? Hey, I’ll go to staff on the disabled spots. Through the chair, thank you for your question. The intent is that the proprietor and the ultimately the either the tenant or the owner would construct the or set up these temporary patios without having any impact on the accessible parking spaces.

In other words, they would remain exactly where they are and if the tenant or the operator of the business is not able to set up temporary outdoor patio without moving the accessible parking space, then we would not allow it. That’s why we’re very clear in the ask, in the change to this only bylaw that yeah, they’re not to be included or sorry, temporary seasonal patios are not to be located with an accessible parking space. We could even add as a result of your question that these spaces are not to be moved either. It’s a good point.

And I see a hand from Nicole, if are you gonna respond? Yes, through the chair, thank you. I was just going to comment, right now that staff’s recommendation is that there’s absolutely no exception for moving accessible parking spaces. However, if there is maybe somebody here from site plan, I don’t know if they maybe wanna comment on the possibility of a business being able to move that space or if it has to remain where it is, again, according to the site plan.

Thank you. I wonder if I could go to someone who’s in site plan to sort of give further clarity on moving an accessible spot and what that process looks like. My piece here from site plan. Generally, something that is minor as moving parking spaces would tend to be like a red line or a note to file.

Not really a formal amendment to the site plan for something minor like that. So hope that answers the question. Sorry, I kind of missed the nuance there. Thank you, Des.

Is that being helpful, Councillor Ben Host? Well, Madam Chair, I think we’ll have to find out in specific instances where the setting of patio might be. So these are technical questions only right now. Well, I think it’s a pretty technical question.

Yep, as I’ve been answered, it’s my question. Well, I can see the intent of the motion or the recommendation. However, there may be a time when someone comes back to us and asks for— So we’re not going into comments right now. I really wanna stay focused with technical questions only if there are any further technical questions, Councillor.

Thank you. - Oh, thank you. Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Mohar, you’re getting welcome.

Yes, thank you. My question is for staff and it’s among the lines of Councillor Turner’s question. And that is, should there be a desire to allow the temporary outdoor patio structure year round? In other words, making it an option without the 30 day or the three consecutive day restriction.

Is there anything in the building code or policies that would prevent committee from considering that at some point? Through the chair, city staff was actually contemplating having them be established like the seasonal temporary outdoor patios year round. However, in conversations with our colleagues in building, they felt well, then how does that differentiate between permanent outdoor patios, which are required for a business license? So if you just have tables and chairs outside year round, there’s really no differentiation.

So that was the thought process to keep it just that seasonal, which is why we came up with that restriction period from November 16th and March 14th inclusive. And then allowing for that 30 days of flexibility for special events or seasonal events. To, yeah, just to revisit your question, it’s something that we did contemplate. It just becomes a little muddy with regards to how permanent patios are separate from seasonal outdoor patios.

Deputy Mayor Morgan. Mr. Gacorus has his hand up. I’d like to hear from him too.

Mr. Gacorus. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. Not to make this extremely complicated, but when we’re talking about patios, I think what we need to distinguish is that the building code, as far as a patio at grade, an assembly of chairs and tables, the building code has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

So from that aspect, I guess it makes it easier for us on the building code side, we’re out. However, when it comes to permanent or not permanent structures, but all year round structures that may involve, let’s say, a tent, our experience has found that a lot of tents are not designed to sustain snow loads. So in that particular case, yes, there would be a restriction to say the building division would not be supportive of all year round patios, but again, we’d have to look at each case on a case-by-case basis. The other thing that I’d like to add too is that at times there are platforms installed on parking lots, which is an assembly of some type of floor joist with planks on top or some kind of plywood.

In that particular case, yes, the building code would apply because it is considered a structure. So from our perspective in terms of whether we support limitations, seasonal limitations, the only concern we would have is on patios that would utilize some kind of a tent structure, that sort of fabric-based. If it was some type of harder material like plywood or plexiglass for that matter, then yes, the building permit would be issued and there’d be no difference whether it’s susceptible to snow or not. So hopefully that helps.

Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, I think the remainder of my comments are probably more appropriate for the debate portion after we hear from the public. Thank you. And with that, I see no further questions, technical questions.

Yes, I do. Councillor Fai from Larr. Thank you, Chair and through you. I just wanna maybe get a little bit of clarification on the seasonal temporary patios, which we were told has come up just in the last couple of years.

Downtown, we have a lot of, I say a lot, but we have patios that are situated on sidewalks that have fences around them and they’ve been there annually for a couple of decades now. Are those patios considered permanent patios because they’ve been there every single year and they pop up in the spring or are they considered seasonal temporary patios? If I can go to staff for that question on the sidewalks with fences, are they temporary or not? Yeah, through the chair, if they are located on a city boulevard, they would be considered, you know, city-owned land, be it a right-of-way or a public road.

They would be deemed as city boulevard patios. What seasonal temporary outdoor patios, as mentioned in my presentation, they were not permitted in the zoning by-law up until March of 2021. And at that time, one of my colleagues in the planning department came forward and it was added and introduced in the zone to assist restaurants and patios during the pandemic closures and lockdowns. So this form of seasonal temporary outdoor patios is relatively new.

So if there are patios that seem to be erected, you know, every spring and they’ve been doing so for several years, chances are they are city boulevard patios. Councillor, you’re satisfied, thank you. I’ll go to the public now and I’ll ask the public to come forward if you could state your name and your address if you wish. You have up to five minutes.

I will give you a countdown to one minute to go. Welcome. My name is Anna Maria and the audio wasn’t clear up in the gallery. I know one asked if the public could hear.

So I may be asking for clarifications for things that have already been answered because I didn’t hear them very well. So in my neighborhood, we have restaurants and taverns that own very large properties. They own their own parking lots that can be the width of a block. They meet all the criteria.

There’s a single lane, a car lane between them and the next residential building. They will meet all that criteria. They could just simply put chairs on their parking lot and I can think of one that could easily host a thousand people. And so my question is, how would this zoning amendment address capacity loads, occupancy loads in that type of scenario where meets the zoning about the distance between itself and a residential building?

And I think that’s pretty much the main zoning requirement. So I’d like that answered, please. And I think this question was already answered, but I didn’t hear it. I’d like to understand better, what is the obligation of the owner to provide washrooms for people that are drinking beer?

And if only the only requirement for washrooms is whatever’s inside the building, which would be applicable to the building code, but these outdoor patios that just sit on parking lots have no tents, have no structures would not be under the jurisdiction of the building code. So I hope that’s clear. Through the chair, I can address the first one. If I can, the public has five minutes and then at the end of all the comments, we’ll go to staff for those questions.

My apologies, Madam. It’s okay, I’ll go to Ms. Velastro if there’s any other comments, questions. No, but it’s not clear up in the gallery, at least not for me.

So I just want to repeat the question. So I get a direct reply, like something that’s really addresses the concern. So the concern is, is that in my neighborhood, there are restaurants and taverns. They have very large properties, very large parking lots, span and entire width of a block.

They meet the zoning requirements for distance to residential areas. And they can easily set up tables and chairs, which where the building code would not apply. So my question is, how does occupancy load impact that scenario under this zoning amendment or does it, maybe it doesn’t? And what is the obligation of an owner to provide washrooms for a patio that’s not covered under the building code for people that are drinking like pictures of beer?

Thank you, Ms. Velastro. And in regards, I do have a concern that you have not heard the comments so far. So when staff address your, answer your questions, are you still able to hear up there?

And I understand you can’t and I’ll just look around and get some nods from the public if they’re having difficulty hearing. So what I’ll do is I’ll ask staff to speak loudly if that is okay. Moving on then to, have you finished Ms. Velastro?

Thank you. If there’s anyone in the gallery that would like to speak to the patio regulations, if you can come forward. I see none, I’ll go to our calls if there’s anyone online that would like to make comments on our regulations for the zoning bylaw for patio restrictions. I see none.

So I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Lehman and seconded by Councillor Turner. And if we can proceed to vote. Councillor Hillier, closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. And I wonder if I could go to staff to answer Ms. Velastro’s questions. I know it was touched upon, maybe if you come down a little bit and our last staff to speak up regarding your questions around the zoning amendment addressing the capacity, I guess to start off with the washrooms, the zoning bylaw and the occupancy.

I think we understand the questions. A number of them have been asked by committee members and I wonder if staff can review those questions one more time for the public. Through the chair, thank you. I’ve adjusted my microphone and hopefully my volume level is sufficient for Ms.

Velastro to hear the answers to her questions. I will reiterate that amendment being brought forth to the to the zoning bylaw is essentially to remove capacity. So anything pertaining to the previous zoning bylaw amendment allowing for temporary seasonal patios, we’re asking to strike that. And basically the size of the patio would be dictated on other elements of the zoning bylaw.

So that essentially would be the setback, minimum setback of six meters from a residential zone, as well as no seasonal outdoor patterns should be located within required parking spaces for residential dwellings. We’ve also touched on, no seasonal outdoor patterns should be located within an accessible parking space. And other things that we’ve also touched on during the discussion is that obstruction of things such as fire connections or water supply with clearly. Mr.

Herferton, we’re losing a little bit if you can come closer to the microphone or whatever you did there to adjust. That’s better. Thank you. Thank you.

So those are the suggested edits or changes to the zoning bylaw. I would defer to my colleague if he would like to reiterate the question with regards to washrooms and the Ontario building code. Thank you. Thank you through you, Madam Chair.

As I’ve stated earlier, the washroom requirements and the total widths of exits are based on the document load for inside a building. If we are talking about exterior outdoor open type patios, there’s no stipulation in the building code that requires an owner or a tenant of such establishment to provide for additional washrooms or additional exits merely because of the fact that there are additional people outside the building. And in this case, on the patio. In this case, also something that came up I heard Ms.

Velastro make mention to people drinking beer. So we have patios that are licensed, but we also may have patios that are not licensed. So I think we need to distinguish between the two. And if we are talking about a patio where alcohol is being served, the AGCO may have a say when it comes to washrooms inside the building or exit widths.

I’m not personally familiar with that. I can only speak to the provisions of the Ontario building code. Thank you for that, Ms. Picakorus.

And if I can just add to that, I’ve applied for a number of alcohol licenses in the past. And I know there are restrictions when you are given a license too. So depending on what the facility is. So I’ll go to committee now.

If there’s, I see W.D. Mayor Morgan’s got his hand up. So maybe I’ll go to him first and then we’ll proceed. Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. And I know I’m not on the committee. So I just want to leave some thoughts with the committee on this because I did bring one of the two motions that came forward for consideration on being more permissive in this space. And I want to thank staff for the work that they’ve done.

I think they’ve written our articulate report that identifies the number of the issues that council supported looking into. I would say given the technical questions and the responses to them, I’m still unclear on why we couldn’t just make this a permanent year-round situation. Given the protections that the ACGO may already have and the number of the answers Mr. Picakorus gave, it seems to me like the three consecutive day and 30 day restrictions may not be necessary in this case.

And it seems like the only reason we have them is to differentiate from a normal patio. And it’s from my perspective, I don’t see why this can’t be the normal state for a number of businesses. It has been a godsend for a number of businesses. In my ward, a number of operators have told me they would not have been able to survive the pandemic.

And even the caution of the public in entering their establishment currently and in the past. And so it seems to me like the pandemic really found a way for us to look at doing something differently. And it’s working quite well. And I heard Mr.

Hefferton say, there were very few complaints about these. And in that case, I just wonder why we need to add additional regulations here when we could be more permissive. So I don’t see the need for the restrictions of the three days and the 30 days. I do think that there’s certainly a benefit to protecting accessible parking spaces.

I wouldn’t have an issue with them moving one or two spaces over if it was appropriate. And there was still an accessible ramp. But I understand that we certainly need to be very clear about protecting in that parking lot accessible spaces. I also would say even on the six meters to residential, I’m not sure.

I mean, it makes sense that’s in the zoning by-law, but it seems like if there were some sort of perhaps committee of adjustment or minor variance application, if the neighbors agreed, I wouldn’t even have much of an issue with that being waived from time to time. Although I think it probably should remain there and have a process. So maybe this is a situation where if committee supportive, we can refer this back and have staff look at removing some of those restrictions. I’m interested to hear what other colleagues say.

Maybe there’s other considerations we should have, but from my perspective, given the answers, I’m not sure why we can’t make this a permanent learning from the pandemic and basically remove some red tape and get out of the way of letting businesses have another avenue to create jobs and recover from the pandemic and move forward with this as the status quo for the foreseeable future. Thanks, Chair. I can go to committee members, Councillor Layman. Yeah, I had so much thoughts to Deputy Mayor Morgan.

My one, what I got from staff’s comments were along the lines of safety issues, for example, like with a tent and snow. So maybe staff could kind of circle back to that and go into that a little bit more about what their safety concerns are. A question to staff. I’m sorry to throw it through, Chair, to staff, yeah.

Yeah, I wonder if I can do that, and I did notice a hand up as well. I’m sorry, I’m having difficulty watching these hands. Sorry, I just put it down through the chair. I just want to go here for municipal compliance.

Thank you. So I’m happy to attempt to address the snow removal question, but I’ll just like to add a couple of comments prior to that if that’s okay with you. Yes, please. Okay, perfect.

So during the 2020 patio season, before any seasonal patio section was added to section 4.18 of the zoning by-law, we allowed businesses to temporarily expand without any capacity calculations. What they were essentially asked was to ensure that they did not occupy accessible parking spaces and that they did not occupy fire routes and to make sure that proper fire extinguishers were outside. We honestly did not receive a lot of complaints with this. The limited number of complaints that were received, I know offhand, was one restaurant had mistakenly placed tables and chairs onto an accessible parking space, but that was quickly resolved.

And that also kind of goes back to what Councillor Van Holz had asked about possible regulations to maybe change that ask. But in my experience, it really hadn’t been that big of a deal for businesses to work around that. In terms of the date range, certainly up to committee to ask otherwise. I’m not sure if anyone here from Realty Services is on the call, but I’ll speak to city property patios, even though I’m not in charge of reviewing them.

The only, maybe obstacle I’ll see around expanding the date range to, let’s say, year round would be the need for snow removal on city property patios. So on those patios that are temporarily set up into sidewalks. Other than that, the temporary patios, or a lot of the patios, are on private property. So I would say that that’s up to the business to work around the snow.

So again, in terms of a date range altar with the dates, certainly up to committee to put back to staff. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Okay, thank you.

I’m inclined to go the referral route here, as opposed to just making an amendment, ‘cause I think this thing has to be looked at from a professional level. So what I would like to do is put a referral on the floor to refer back to staff to specifically look at the restrictions on the off-season between November and March, and the 30-day limit, et cetera. Okay, so we have a referral on the floor, and I’m looking for a seconder. Councillor Lewis, are you seconding, or do you have a question?

I have a question. I just want to make sure I heard Councillor Layman correctly, that it would include the three consecutive days being examined as well as the 30-day limit. That is correct. Then also.

And I know the clerk is typing away here. I can hear her. So comments, Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the referral by my colleagues. I think if I heard Deputy Mayor Morgan correctly, and if I’ve heard through staff, the three days and 30 days had been contemplated, they thought through it. It seems like we’re kind of coalescing around the idea that those restrictions aren’t necessary. So it might be better for us just to refer back to staff, to say, to bring back a bylaw that doesn’t have those date restrictions in it.

So that it’s formed properly. And I guess I would look to the mover and seconder to see if that encapsulates it. Otherwise staff will just come back and say, yeah, this is what we proposed and these are the reasons we did it, but I don’t know if anything is really new that comes back to us. I’ll go to the mover regarding the bylaw coming back to us with just dealing with the date restrictions.

Thank you. Yeah, that was my intent. So appreciate Councillor Turner for being more specific in the crafting of that referral. Okay, I know I have to wait for the clerk here to get it up for us.

There is a referral for it to go back. I wonder if we can have further comments, Councillor Turner questions. Yeah, thank you. I might just add to you one more.

I was the question about the cap. Three Madame Chair to staff, I think Mr. Haverton was talking about that there was discussion about placing a cap on the max size. Just if you might recall, I’m interested to know what that number that might have been floated around was.

Mr. Haverton, placing a cap, the number. Yeah, thank you. Through you, Madame Chair, I’m not entirely clear of that cap question.

I wonder if Councillor just read or read that question. Thank you. During the technical questions, I’d asked if a cap had been contemplated on the maximum number of seats that would be permitted. So we’re removing the 50% requirement.

And then now it’s kind of sky’s the limit. But we’ve heard that there’s some EGCO parameters on that. There might be some other constraints. But I think in the process of the discussion, it sounded like there was a cap initially proposed.

I’m curious what that cap was. Through you, Madame Chair, that actually wasn’t contemplated during the discussions and internal discussions with staff during the drafting of the proposed amendments before us today. Then perhaps through you, Madame Chair, to staff in general, and I’m not sure who’s best to answer this, if we were to contemplate a cap, one, is it necessary? And two, is there a right size for that?

And three, I guess, should that be part of the referral as well? And I’m not sure what my colleagues think about that either. We’ve heard one concern through some correspondence that, in a certain circumstance, it could lead to a rather large involvement. Most circumstances, I’d imagine it wouldn’t.

But just to get a better sense of, if this ends up having unintended consequences at the end of the day. I guess this is a question for staff. Should we be contemplating a cap? Is the question?

And with the referral back, I guess I’m looking to the mover and the seconder as well. But maybe we can get staff to give us an idea. Should we be looking at the cap? Or can we be, as we refer this back, through the letter?

  • Through the chair. Yep, through the chair. Hi there, it’s Nicole Musico again from Municipal Compliance. So the reason why we are here this evening is because we’ve received three different council resolutions asking for staff to possibly amend capacity restrictions and review the temporary pandemic-related flexibility with regards to outdoor patios.

So the proposal you have in front of you this evening is to remove that 50% or 50 persons, whichever is greater. Just take that right out of the zoning by-law, ultimately providing for ultimate flexibility for businesses to decide how many patrons they can sit outside. Ultimately, if you would like us to review or maybe assign a different number or a specific number, certainly as this is already being referred back, that is something we can review. But at this time, our proposed staff recommendation is completely removing it out of the zoning by-law.

I hope that helps, I’m happy to answer any other questions. Thank you for that reminder, Councilor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. So I think more to the point is that we’ve had some discussion about this, we’ve asked some questions.

It still seems, I think the question at hand is are the other mechanisms and restrictions and regulations sufficient to be able to address the concern of a patio that gets way larger and was contemplated as the purpose of this by-law? And I might throw you to staff and Ms. Musico might be able to answer that. Ms.

Musico? Thank you, yes, sorry about that. Thank you. Yes, through the chair, there are other regulations, mainly locational restrictions or regulations contained in the section 4.18 of the outdoor patio section.

Again, guiding where the patio can physically be located. But as Mr. Cook Horse has also indicated, the, if we remove the capacity out of the zoning by-law, the Ontario building code does not regulate outdoor capacity. So if we put it simply, if we take it out of the zoning by-law, we can’t rely on the Ontario building code to assign a maximum.

Now, as Councilor Hopkins also pointed out, there is a review by the AGCO. I’m not 100% familiar with it, but maybe upon the referral back to staff, that is something that we can ensure that we properly evaluate. I have contacts at the AGCO consult with them and verify exactly what their process looks like in terms of what they require for submission of plans, site plans, and essentially maximum capacities if they do review those, which I think they do. Councilor Turner, we do see the referral in front of us.

So I think that that’s all very helpful. Ultimately, it sounds like if there is to be a ceiling on this, it’s us to assign that ceiling. The 50% or 50 seats was too small. And we heard that pretty loud and clear from operators throughout the pandemic, but we also hear this that there isn’t any clear mechanisms elsewhere to be able to control the maximum size.

I think there’s probably a reasonable number in there. I’m not sure what it is, because I’m not really good at visualizing how many seats there are in a patio when I walk onto it. But the concern of a 1,000 person patio becomes valid. And I could see how that might be a concern in near residential neighborhoods and having a fairly significant impact.

I don’t think that ends up being a realistic probability with most operators because they might not have the space or the ability to place something of that size, but some do. And so I think it might be reasonable to come back with something like that’s a 100 or 200 number, but I’m not sure what that is. So perhaps if I might look to my colleagues who’ve made the motion to ask that that might be something else that’s included with it, basically a line of, and that staff also report back with a reasonable ceiling limit to the number of seats. And I would look to them and perhaps that’s completely contrary to what we’re discussing, but I’m not sure if Sky’s the limit is what we’re looking for here either.

I’ll go to the mover and the seconder, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So sorry to get a little echo there. I wouldn’t want to be picking an arbitrary number to ask staff to report back.

I would be happy to include in the referral and that staff report back on the mechanisms by which the alcohol gaming commission of Ontario do regulate. When I co-authored a motion on this, I did read the alcohol gaming commission of Ontario policies. There are mechanisms in there that do limit capacity overall, but I don’t want to speak to the specific details. I don’t have that in front of me.

I’d be happy to have staff bring that back for information to us though, as part of this referral. And if that is amenable to the mover and satisfies what Councillor Turner’s looking for, I think that I’d be happy to keep my second on the motion at that point. So if I can get some clarification here, adding to the referral back that we report back, that’s that consult, I guess, with the AGCO and report back with this referral. Councillor Turner, would that be okay with you adding that?

Or do you want to be specific to the number of seats? I don’t think it has to be an arbitrary number. There’s probably some way of getting to it, but I think whatever we have, just so that we’re contemplating that next round. And I think at that point, we can set it.

We’ll have enough information by which to do that. And I’d be interested to hear from business owners as well to understand what that impact might be too. Yeah, good point there. Okay, so we have an amendment, Deputy Mayor Morgan.

First and before I go to committee, I noticed your hand is Deputy Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you. So I think good comments by all the committee members. And I think Councillor Turner raises a good point here that the intent here isn’t to completely take over all parking lots in the city with massive patios.

And I think there will also given most of the outdoor seasonal patios are occupying private spaces. Like there will be some natural business barriers to taking up all of your available parking spaces with patios, I think as well. So I think getting some information back for thought and discussion of the committee seems very appropriate, but I’m really happy with the direction the committee’s going. And I think this is a good direction for us to take, just to see if there’s a way that we can remove these barriers coming back with those options given there’s been nothing I think that has been said today that is a make or break feel breaker for lack of a better term on allowing these year round.

I think that it’s good for us to see it in writing one last time, get a little bit of feedback from our constituents on the way that we’re going and have one last go at this in a debate. And I really thank colleagues for their thoughts and discussion today. I think it’s been really productive. Thank you.

I’ll go to Councillor Layman and then I’ll go to Councillor Feithmiller just to bring the committee’s attention to the referral that’s in front of us. It’s been updated. Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, as a mover of your ocean. You know, I blew my questions earlier. Obviously I was concerned about capacity and you know, as Councillor Turner said, unintended consequences. I don’t envision a thousand people filling a parking lot, but you never know, right?

I’m, as a, for sure, to put a number. I’m hoping that what staff can find out through liquor license applications that this would be taken care of, but I think it’s good to know before we proceed on this. So I’m, as a mover, I’m okay with adding that in there. And I also like staff to, and I don’t know if this needs to be part of the motion, but just for general information, to maybe consult with other municipalities, ‘cause I’m sure we’re not the only ones contemplating this change.

You know, to see how they’re landing on the capacity issue. Thank you for that. I think staff are going to be most likely looking into that already. Councillor Fakinlow.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, some really great comments here. I think when we, when we started down this path, originally the premise behind doing some of this work was their restaurants capacity on their patios was limited to 50% of their indoor capacity. And with everyone wanting to eat outdoors, especially through 20 and 21, having some flexibility to enlarge that space to accommodate more people was a benefit to the restaurants. It was a benefit to the residents of London, and it was a benefit to areas like the downtown to sort of bring back some of that vibrancy.

I would say on the number, I’d struggle a little bit with capacity because I think we have different size in it. In my ward alone, we have very different size patios and very different size areas where people can work in. I agree with Councillor Lewis. I think the AGCO sets very rigid guidelines based around washroom facilities and capacities.

And I see that they would stick pretty much to those. I also know when we get downtown, especially when we get festivals and such, we do get a large group of people together, but have to be accommodated through appropriate washroom facilities. That’s part of the goal. So I really appreciate hearing the committee wanting to send this back.

I would struggle by putting on a specific number. I’d like to hope that we can come back looking at it with something that benefits the restaurant owners, that benefits the community as a whole. The other thing that I’d comment on, and I know Deputy Mayor Morgan commented on the six meter setback. I think depending on where you are, when I look at my area, I have a lot of patios that back directly onto residential.

I think a six meter setback is appropriate. I think that’s something that is important for those neighborhoods. So I do think that’s something dependent on the area that we really have to look at. But in the end, I do think this is something that is beneficial to the community.

I think it’s beneficial to the businesses. I wanna thank staff for bringing forward the report. And I look forward to see something back that at the end allows businesses to move forward, make their purchases on appropriate patio equipment that will better serve their clientele. So thank you.

Thank you. And we have a referral moved and seconded. Any other comments? If I can just make one from the chair.

Really appreciate the debate that we had here. I think took us a while to get where we are. I’m supportive of the referral back. Not sure what’s gonna come back and how I’m gonna go going forward.

But I think we need to find out a little bit more here and make sure we get this right as well. So with that, we can proceed to vote. I’m sure. Oh, sorry, Councillor Turner.

If I might just in the motion, I’d imagine this can be fixed from time for council, the motion as it stands right now, bring back a revised by-law, removing the three consecutive days, the 30-day limit and the mechanisms by which the agricultural and AGCO regulate capacity. I think we meant to say and provide the mechanisms. So it sounds by the way it’s phrased right now, since it’s asking staff to remove the mechanisms by which the AGCO regulate capacity. I just wanna make sure that’s clear before we pass this.

Okay, if I can look to Clerk, I’m sure we can correct that before council, or when it comes to council. Clerk has made note. Councillor Turner, are you still okay with that? Councillors, just advance, because otherwise it reads the opposite of what we’re trying to do.

Thank you. And with that, we can proceed. Opposing to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.2, which is a public participation meeting for 37000 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Boswick Road, looking to open up the public participation.

Meeting Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis if we can proceed to vote. Opposing to vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’d like to go to Mr. Motrum for a short verbal on this one.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is an application request for an amendment to zoning regulations that apply to a residential subdivision located at 3,700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Boswick Road. The focus here is on special provisions in the zoning that require a front yard setback to the main dwelling of three meters minimum and 4.5 meters maximum. And the request is to remove the 4.5 meter maximum front yard setback regulation.

The applicant has indicated that their home builders are experiencing difficulties complying with the requirement at the same time as accommodating contemporary home designs for their single detached and multifamily unit, multifamily residential units. Builders designing units in the subdivision have requested this amendment so that front entrance foyer’s in homes are less elongated and narrow. And especially as these homes are usually two stories in height, the exterior is less appealing with an entrance snout protruding past the house, which is then accentuated front porch. You can get a sense of this from the figures that are provided on page 77 of the agenda, which were provided by the applicant’s consultant where they have illustrations of the typical regular lot, configurations and pie shape lots with the building footprint also showing on that.

And that’s provided for the 4.5 meter maximum setback as well as on page 78. There’s an example of a 7.5 meter setback where that maximum front yard setback is increased to allow for the elements such as the porch and the front entrance and foyer to be more aligned with the garage. And there is that protruding snout coming out of the front of the main dwelling. And so in order to provide more flexibility for home builders, staff have reviewed the setback requirements applying to the lots in this subdivision and recommend that the maximum front yard setback be deleted, but that it be limited to the lots fronting on to neighborhood streets.

And that a new regulation be added for lots of fronting on neighborhood connector roads for our front yard setback to main dwelling of three meters minimum and six meters maximum. The recommended amendments continue to maintain the intent of the London plan and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan policies, which encourages street oriented build form, particularly in relation to the higher order streets. So in summary, Madam Chair, the zoning amendments in part A of the recommendation to delete the 4.5 meter maximum setback will permit residential dwellings located on the interior lots, fronting on neighborhood streets, more flexibility and design and efficiency will maintaining consistency with our planning policies. A minor increase to the maximum building setback regulation from 4.5 meters to six meters, affecting only the lots fronting on the neighborhood connectors is recommended and no changes are recommended to the zone setbacks adjacent to Boswick Road, which is classified as a civic boulevard.

So with that Madam Chair, I’ll pass it back to you if there are any technical questions. Thank you, Mr. Motrum. Any technical questions from committee?

I see none. I will now go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this. If you can come forward with your name and address if you wish. Oh, sorry.

You know what I’ll do before I go to the public. You got about the applicant. If the applicant is here, Mr. Sufen, Mr.

Ailes, I’m not sure if we would like to speak to this. Hi, my name’s Dave Ailes. I’m representing York developments on this file. Yeah, Mr.

Ailes, welcome. And I just want to let you know you’ve got up to five minutes. Please proceed. I’d like to say first off that we’ve been supportive of the setbacks with staff all the way along, including the original zoning.

And where the difficulty came in is during the first couple of permits that were applied for. It turned out that the front yard zoning is not really applicable to the front porches. And the report explains that a bit. And this is where it really affected the designs that the builders had worked out with their clients.

Garages are popular, pretty much all the houses have them. And then also porches are quite popular too. So the builders really found only a few clients were willing to go under the existing by-law. And they wanted to move forward on seeing if we could make an amendment.

And as proposed tonight, the changes in the amendments, York is supportive of everything in terms of the actual setback numbers, the six meters on the connector roads. Where we wanted clarification was only that there’s some circumstances where the building facades, the main building facade, me the front door or the habitable spaces, as well as the front porches, which aren’t eligible to the maximum setbacks, they can vary. And so we didn’t want to have another interpretation down the road at the building permit stage, where as the by-law would state, it could be interpreted that the garages could never be forward of any element of the building. And so we had proposed through our correspondence that we submitted to committee, some special provision amendments for the various zoning types that just simply asked, would you ever as closer to the front?

So in all cases, we’re looking for the garage to still be behind the porches, or behind the facade of the main building facade, if that’s what smells forward, but that it not be interpreted that both facades and porches drove the, had to be driven with regard to the garage setbacks. So it’s a very simple request. I really haven’t had time because I’ve been on vacation to discuss this with staff, but this is our request for tonight. Thank you, Mr.

Ailes. I will now go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation to come forward. I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation to please come forward stating your name and address, if you wish.

Dean Nunn, I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Hillier, and seconded by Councillor Lewis. I was in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Just before we proceed for comments or motion, I would like to go to Vice Chair, Councillor Layman, if he could take over, chairing the meeting. This is in my ward. Thank you, and you’re on deck. Thank you, and I would like to follow up on the applicants questioning around having further clarification on the by-law.

And I would like to just go to staff for their comments. I heard from Mr. Ailes that they have not sort of followed through with this by-line. I’d like to know what staff thinks of the changes in the by-law that we’ve received.

We’ll go to staff for comments. Thank you for that. I did receive the letter and reviewed the letter from York, developments, which was speaking to what Mr. Ailes is asking for, specifically with respect to that one provision.

And we really weren’t proposing any changes to that provision, but I don’t think that we have any problem with that little bit of wording that they’re asking to be included with respect to the setback in relation to where the garage is, and that it’s not to project beyond the facade of the dwelling or the facade in front face of any porch, whichever is closer. So that additional wording provides for some reference point. And so that wording does give some clarification and a little bit more comfort to the proponents of with respect to the interpretation of that regulation going forward when their builders come in for a building permit. We agree that it maintains the intent that the Southwest Area Plan policy and it doesn’t impact the staff’s recommendation as for all intents and purposes, the remainder of the by-law is the same that staff are recommending.

Thank you for that, Mr. Motrim. And with that, I would like to bring forward the mended by-law. I think I heard from staff that nothing really has changed.

I want to make sure nothing has changed, but if it adds that further clarification, and if it remains within the intent of squab, I think that is really important. So with that, I would like to put forward the amended by-law and see if I’ve got a seconder. We have a seconder, Councillor Lewis. Comments or questions on the amendment, Councillor Lewis?

Just very briefly, Mr. Presiding Officer, I’m happy to support Councillor Hopkins on this amendment. I think when we’re talking about porches and building facades, people view porches a little differently, and when we’re using whichever’s closer, I think that that’s pretty reasonable. Porches are often active spaces, and when we’re talking about neighborhood streets, and even the busier neighborhood collectors, when those spaces are active, by neighbors engaging with neighbors, that’s a good thing for the community as a whole.

So happy to support that and just make sure that that’s how it’s interpreted moving forward. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote on the amendment? Seeing none, then we’ll call the vote on the amendment. Councillor Hopkins, do you wish to your body language?

You might have a comment. Sorry, Clerk, I just, please proceed. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So now we have a motion, or now we have an amendment motion.

I’m gonna, is it okay if I turn the chair back to you? Councillor, I’ll continue on to the end. So we have an amendment that’s been passed. I’ll look to committee members to move the motion and get a seconder and then we’ll open the floor for comments or questions.

Do I have a mover? Sorry, Clerk. You’re at standing committee. You don’t need to approve the amendment.

It’s already been approved in the recommendation. That’s only a council. Okay, thank you. So we have a motion with amendment on the floor.

Any comments or questions before I call that vote? I’m ready. I’m sorry, Clerk, please give me some guidance here. So the revised recommendation has already been approved by the committee.

So the item has been dealt with. Then I’ll turn the chair back to Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Vice Chair Layman. And with that, we’re gonna move on to item 3.3, which is a public participation meeting.

For 140, 142 Wellington Street, it is a request to remove properties from the register of the cultural heritage resources. Looking to open up the PPM, Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis. closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And there is no presentation from staff hoping the committee has reviewed the report.

I will go to the public, if there’s anyone here from the public, that would like to make a comment regarding the designation request to be removed from the register. If you could come forward, please. Last one more time. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment, if you could come forward.

I see none, I’ll go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman, and if we can proceed to vote. Seconded vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’m here to remove this address from the register.

If I can go to committee for a motion, comments, questions, Councillor Lewis. I’ll move the staff recommendation. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman. And without we can proceed to vote.

Seconded vote, the motion carries five to zero. Brief point four, which is a public participation meeting for demolition requests for 520 Ontario Street or East Heritage Conservation District, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Seconded vote, the motion carries five to zero.

There will be no staff presentation on this one. I’m hoping that everyone has been able to review the recommendation. For the demolition request, I will go to the public. If there’s any comments from the public, this is on 520 Ontario Street demolition request.

I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this. I see none, so I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by. Councillor Lewis.

In the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll go to the committee for a motion. Comments, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’ll move the staff recommendation again. And looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman. Further question, comments, I see none. So we will proceed to vote.

In the vote, motion carries five to zero. And moving right along here to 3.5, which is a public participation meeting for 767 Fanshawe Park Road East. I’d like to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner.

In the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Staff for the staff presentation on this. Welcome. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, I just want to confirm that everyone can hear me okay.

We sure can. Great, thank you. Good evening committee members, colleagues and members of the public. My name is Olia and I’m with the planning and implementation team here.

And I will be speaking to the Zoning Amendment application at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East. And I do have a couple of slides, which I believe were provided. So I’m just going to go with slides by slide, starting with slide one. So before us is a Zoning Amendment application to permit the development of a single two and a half story stack townhouse building containing 12 dwelling units at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East.

The purpose and effect of this application is to rezone the site from a residential R17 zone to a residential R5 special provision zone providing for townhouses that would permit the proposed development. Moving on to slide number two, an image of the subject site, which is located at the south side of Fanshawe Park Road East. Just east of Toss Rocks Avenue in the northeast quadrant of the city in the Stony Brook Planning District. It is currently situated on the property as a single story brick dwelling to detach garage and a woodshed.

In terms of the surrounding land uses to the north, we do have medium and high density residential in the form of townhouses and apartment buildings. To the east, the south and the west, there is low density residential and single detached dwelling. Moving on to slide number three, the proposed development. So as mentioned, the proposal is a 2.5 story stack townhouse building containing 12 dwelling units, which equals to 64 units per hectare fronting Fanshawe Park Road East.

Access will be provided to the site by a single right in, right out driveway from Fanshawe Park Road East and will be located near the western property line. Pedestrian connections to the street are provided through direct connections from units facing the street and a sidewalk providing pedestrian access to rear and internally facing units. Recently, the applicant has made some changes to the design of the proposal as part of the response to the urban design peer review panel. And that was to add Belch needs to the upper units to provide private amenity space in addition to the common amenity area.

18 parking spaces will be located in the western side and rear yard in a common outdoor amenity area and landscape open space is proposed along the eastern property line and southeast corner of the subject site. If we go to slide four and these are just some renderings and images of that were submitted by the applicant. Moving on to slide number five, I’ll be speaking to the policy context. In terms of the provincial policy statement 2020, it directs settlement areas to be focused of the focus of growth and development, further stating that the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas is critical to the long-term economic prosperity of our communities.

It directs planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. In terms of the London plan, within the London plan, the site is found to be in the neighborhood’s place type. It does front an urban thoroughfare, which that being Fanshawe Park Road East. So the permitted uses include townhouses, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments, and the heights which they are permitted within our two to four stories.

The London plan provides direction to build a mixed use, compact city by planning for infill and intensification of various types and forms to take advantage of the existing services and facilities and to reduce our need to grow outward. In terms of the 1989 official plan, the current designation is low-density residential. Residential intensification may be permitted for up to 75 units per hectare in the form of single detached semi-detached dwellings, attached dwelling cluster housing and low-rise apartments. And this proposal that we have here is at 64 units per hectare.

If we move on to slide number six, I’m just going to speak to what is being requested. The request is to rezone the subject site from an R1-7 zone to a residential R5 special provision zone, providing for townhouses and stacked townhouses. That will permit the proposed development. The following special provisions would facilitate the proposed development.

A minimum front yard setback of 3.8 meters, a minimum interior side yard setback of 3.3 meters, a balcony encroachment of 3.25 meters into their required front yard and a maximum density of 64 units per hectare. If we move along to slide number six, neighborhood concern. So through the community engagement process, we did receive fixed written responses from members of the public. And I’m just going to group the concerns.

So the first one being privacy, noise and lighting. So the proposed building is being positioned away from the abutting rear yards to the greatest ability. The proposed building provides for setbacks of 17.6 meters to the rear lot line, 15.53 meters to the west lot line and 3.3 meters to the eastern lot line. Vehicle parking is located to the western side and rear with fencing and landscaping proposed to provide a buffer between the abutting properties to help maximize privacy.

Staff are satisfied that the setbacks, landscaping and fencing is sufficient to provide for privacy. The next concern was traffic impacts. Transportation staff is supportive of the development and do not anticipate significant impacts as part of the development proposal. Next, we had concerns concerning over intensification.

The London Plan policy state that residential intensification will only be permitted where adequate infrastructure exists to support proposals, including off-street parking, supply and buffering community facilities with an emphasis on an outdoor recreational spaces and traffic impacts and transportation infrastructure, including transit service. The London Plan height framework provides into intensification along higher-order streets. As in particular policies that speak to range of uses and intensity permitted will be related to the classification of the street. Properties fronting onto major streets may allow for a broader range of uses and more intense forms of development than those fronting onto minor streets.

Staff are satisfied that the proposed density is appropriate for the site and is able to accommodate sufficient parking, amenity space and adequate infrastructure, community facilities, transportation and services that exist to support this proposal. Lastly, the concern centered around stormwater management. As part of the site plan application process, the applicants engineer will be required to provide a stormwater management design that complies with the city’s site plan control by-law and design specifications manual. All sites that come through the site plan process are required to control, to contain and to outlet their stormwater to a safe outlet, for example, the rate of weight.

If the site is experiencing drainage issues in the current state, this will be resolved as part of the site plan application through engineers design, which may include a combination of catch basins, whales, parking lot, surface storage, infiltration and galleries, et cetera. A controlled engineered site will function much better than an uncontrolled non-engineered site. As such, engineer staff are satisfied that the setbacks proposed as part of this application will provide for sufficient space to provide for stormwater management. And lastly, if we turn to slide eight, which is staff’s recommendation, staff is recommending approval as the amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement 2020, conforms to the enforced policies of the London plan and the 1989 official plan.

The recommended amendment would facilitate the development of an underutilized site with a land use intensity and form that is appropriate for the site. And thank you and I’m available for any questions. Thank you, any technical questions. I see none, I will now go to the agent for the applicant.

The agent is here. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of committee, members of staff, members of the public. My name is Casey Kolchicki, senior planner with Zilinka Priam Unlimited, representing the applicant on this project. I’d just like to extend a thank you to Olia for her work on this file.

We have had a few meetings back and forth between myself and planning staff to resolve some of the urban design matters. And we have had the chance to review Olia’s report tonight. And we are in agreement with its recommendation for approval of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. I am on hand to address any comments or questions from members of the committee or members of the public.

And other than that, I will turn it back over to you, Madam Chair, to hear the public’s comments. Thank you, Mr. Kolchicki. And with that, I will now go to the public if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this application.

Please come forward, stating your name and address if you wish. And you have up to five minutes and I will interrupt with a one minute warning. So please proceed and welcome. Good evening.

My name is Susan Berberich. And I’m here with my husband, Doug. Just one moment. I just wanna make sure we can all hear you.

Maybe we’re getting your microphone down a little bit. Can you hear me now? That’s a bit better. Okay.

We’ve got some notes. How’s this? That’s better. Okay.

Good evening. My name is Susan Berberich and I’m here with my husband, Doug. But it’s okay, we both are going to speak. We’ve lived at 768 Dellequith Avenue for the last 39 years.

Our backyard directly abuts the south side of the subject property. The proposed development will make a significant change to the character of the neighborhood. Currently, there is a one story single family home on the subject property, which is heavily treated with 32 mature trees and a large green space on the west, east, and south sides, providing a large buffer area between the subject property and the neighboring properties. The house on the subject property sits up on the most elevated area of the property, but the mature trees provide a good deal of privacy between the subject property and the abutting properties.

The proposed development calls for the replacement of the existing one story structure with a much higher and bigger two and a half story stacked 12 unit townhouse complex with open balconies facing onto the backyards of the abutting properties to the south and the removal of all but one of the 32 mature trees and the paving of most of the rest of the property to provide parking along the lot lines on the west and south sides of the property. This proposal has given rise to various concerns, including drainage flooding issues, loss of privacy, and questions about the plan for waste management and storage of garbage. To be clear, we are not adverse to the development of the property. We are, however, concerned that the current proposal is overly aggressive relative to the size and characteristics of this particular property and may not be achievable without adversely affecting the neighboring properties.

The R1 zone, sorry, R1 seven zoning currently in place for the subject property already would permit redevelopment including semi-detached or duplex dwellings of a height more in keeping with the height of the neighboring homes. As such, reasonable intensification could still be achieved under the existing zoning with a smaller development that would allow for the retention of more trees and green space to maintain a real buffer between the subject property and those properties that abut it. This would certainly be our strong preference. Having said that, we do understand that the property issue front-side to Fanchal Park Road, which is a busy road and it is on a transit route.

And so the city appears strongly inclined to support the proposed development, even so that subject property also backs on to six other properties in a long established neighborhood. So if the city does decide to approve the rezoning and special conditions, we would like to gain some comfort that the development will be done in such a way so as to effectively minimize any adverse impacts on our properties to the extent reasonably possible. The London Plan favors intensification to maximize the use of existing resources. And this makes sense, but it also includes language to the effect that this will be allowed only if the proposed development is compatible with and does not adversely affect the community.

In our view, this would include maintaining or restoring a robust buffer zone of mature trees along the edge of the property to maintain reasonable privacy, addressing concerns about drainage and flooding, appropriate fencing, waste management and a plan to mitigate spill over lighting and noise. My husband has some further comments. Thank you. We’ve been told by WOLIA and others that many of the concerns that my wife just raised are the type of matters that will be dealt with later during the site planning process.

However, we understand that the site planning phase does not necessarily include input from the public. And while the development proposal and the planning recommendations documents do suggest that adverse impacts on neighboring properties will be addressed or mitigated, these documents describe the proposed mitigations only in very general terms, all of which are described as being subject to change and non-binding. It is important how these issues are dealt with because done right, this redevelopment could be quite good. It could achieve the desired intensification, but it could also be done in a way that the neighbors feel like their concerns have been heard and dealt with in a reasonable way.

But we acknowledge that the proposal submitted by the developer seems to recognize the privacy issue. And to restore some level of privacy, he says he plans to install privacy fencing and plan some new trees along the periphery of the property. While this certainly sounds good, the devil is in the details. For example, the diagram that accompanied the planning recommendations document appears to show only four trees sparsely spaced out across the approximately 150 foot length backing on to the abutting properties to the south.

Similarly, there are only four trees shown on the approximately 136 feet abutting the properties to the west. By any reasonable assessment, this seems unlikely to provide much of a buffer zone between the townhouse complex and the neighboring properties. We have some questions I understand we can ask now and they’ll be answered later if the developer would be prepared to comment. One, from the drawings on the development proposal, the width of the green space proposed to run out along the west and south of the property, adjacent to the parking spaces, appears to be about 1.5 meters.

So the question is, does this allow enough space to plant mature trees to reestablish a robust buffer zone? And is it your intent to do so or not? And if it is, how many trees are you actually planning to plant along the periphery? And how high?

Question two, regarding fencing. What type of fencing are you proposing? And how will you ensure that it’s effective to provide privacy, block headlights of the cars parking out towards everyone’s backyard, and provide protection against children climbing the fence into backyards that have swimming pools? What is the plan for garbage storage?

And finally, what is the plan for grading of the property and for drainage and flood management? I think our main ask today is if the city is minded to approve the requested rezoning and special conditions that certain items be included as conditions or requirements to provide some reasonable comfort that the development will, in fact, minimally impact on the existing neighbors to the extent reasonably possible. These items include one, confirmation that fencing will be designed to provide privacy, be double-sided to deter climbing and provide good aesthetics on both sides, and be no less than the maximum permitted height under the fencing by-law. Two, that specific commitments be obtained to restore a robust tree buffer zone along the west, east, and south edges of the lot with mature trees to restore a reasonable level of privacy.

Three, details be provided regarding plans for dealing with drainage flooding and runoff issues. Four, details regarding plans for garbage storage and waste management be provided. And lastly, we’d ask for a commitment by the owner and/or the developer. You have just less than a minute left.

Thank you. A commitment by the owner and/or the developer to consult with interested neighbors during the site planning process, to discuss any concerns and to endeavor to reasonably and appropriately address them. To this end, we would like to invite the owner and the developer to meet with us and any other interested neighbors to hear our concerns and to discuss these issues so that we do have an opportunity to have input into the site development planning. Finally, I’d just like to thank Maureen Cassidy for meeting with us and other concerned neighbors and the members of the PEC committee today for their time and attention.

Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. If you can state your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes.

Okay. Randy Wilson, 105 McLeod Crescent. Good evening, counselors and city staff. I would like to thank Doug and Sue for their comments that we echo their support and their comments.

My wife, Maureen, and I are speaking on behalf, on our behalf, as well as behalf of Margaret and Tim Wilson. Both Wilson properties back on to 767 Fanshawe park release. We come here today to firstly express our few concerns regarding the proposed 12-unit Stocktown House development. First, we are not against some form of a tent built here.

However, we do fail the footprint is too large for the lot. They propose to move 31 of the 32 matured trees and large green space today that soaks up the water that runs down the hill. Tim and I grew up at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East. We know the property very well.

Heavy rain or fast melt snow or snow melt can pool water at the lower part of the property. Not a problem today as a large green space soaks up the water. This new development will change the lower area to paved parking, to 18 parking spades, and appear to be very narrow strips of grass along the east and south sides of the property. In preparation for tonight’s meeting, we have provided three photos to help visualize the past and the current situation.

The grade on this property is downhill from the north and from the east. Photo one, taken from a low point on our property, looking towards the deck at 767 Fanshawe Park Road, five or six steps up the hill, and another five or six steps up onto a deck. Let’s call it 10 steps, eight inches per step, greater than six feet. Photo two, taken from a low point on our property, and looking up the fence line to Fanshawe Park Road, the traffic at the street level is higher than the five foot fence.

Photo three shows a green hydro box located at the rear of my property. Flooding is our number one concern. The property has been described on page two of the developer planning and design report is generally flat topography. However, we would describe this grade as significant.

We estimate the grade is greater than six feet, possibly closer to eight feet. Prior to the widening of Fanshawe Park Road, there were no curves or gutters along Fanshawe. Due to heavy rains and fast snow melt, we would see water run down the hill and pool around the hydro box on our property. This has not been a problem since they installed curves and gutters along Fanshawe.

Is it concerned to us that the entrance into this complex will remove the curbing and introduce a path of water, a path that is now paved? We want to ensure we don’t become a floodplain in this development. We have outside entrance ends at and below the grade level. If they don’t get this right, they could flood two levels of our home.

Please note, we are aware of the flooding at different sites and that occurred at the development stages. We do not want to go through that homeowner’s experience. My five minutes is almost up. I’d like to turn it over to Maureen.

Thank you, Randy. I too would like to thank, oh, sorry. Can everyone hear me? I thank Randy and Sue and Doug as well.

As my husband was saying, we echo their comments and support those. Good evening, everyone. I am Maureen Wilson, both the province and the Ontario and the city of London, recognize climate change as an emergency. The city’s Climate Action Report, pages 130 and 145, speak about low impact development, de-paving initiatives, and sensitivity analysis to ensure resiliency beyond the 100-year and 250-year regional storm events.

The proposed development seems contradictory to the de-paving initiative. We would like to understand the plan for how they will manage the water that runs down to the asphalt parking lot and keep it off our properties. With the grade on this property and the removal of vegetation, can stormwater management be successfully installed to protect abutting properties during significant weather events, not just average events? Fencing is our second concern.

Fencing needs to work in conjunction with keeping our property from flooding, provide noise abatement, be attractive, discourage climbing, and act as a pool fence for those with pools. We are aware the city by-law is a seven-foot fencing maximum. However, given that the developer would be getting concessions on property line allowances and number of units, we feel it is reasonable to ask that concessions also include fencing greater than seven feet. The reasoning around that is that the fencing needs to be high enough that lights turning into the complex are not an annoyance for abutting properties.

In addition to the grade, we need to account for the height of lights on larger vehicles. We think the fence needs to be significantly taller than seven feet. While we have been told that stormwater management and fencing are issues that will be addressed at the site planning phase, to us they are fundamentally important to the question of whether this site should be rezoned. Our question and request, one, other than our word counselor, word five counselor, has a city representative been to the site in person to see what has been described as generally flat topography.

Two, what is the grade on the property? Three, has the proposed site undergone an analysis beyond the 100-year and 250-year regional storm events? And if not, will this be done? We would like to ask, number four, we would like to ask for a commitment that the stormwater management plan being made available to abutting property owners.

Five, we would like concessions included for fencing greater than seven feet. If that is what it takes to keep vehicle lights from being an annoyance. Six, what are the plans for snow storage and removal? That too can cause water.

What are the plans for grading of seven is what are the plans for grading, barriers, and fencing? In closing, the requested rezoning should only be allowed once the city is confident after inspection of the property that these issues can be successfully managed on this property. In addition, we would like to thank our word counselor, Maureen Cassidy, for making time to come to our property to see in person what our concerns are. If any committee member wishes to see the lot grade from our property, the invitation remains open.

We understand that many of these items are part of the site planning stage. However, our ask is that the committee takes our concerns into consideration regarding the proposed development now and addresses our concerns by including actionable requirements or conditions in any rezoning approval that may be granted. We thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to make comments to this rezoning amendment? Last one more time, if there’s anyone from the public? Oh, sorry, I didn’t see the microphone over there. I’m looking in so many different— I was just sitting here very quiet.

You sure were. - And listen to what ever was going on. Welcome. - I’d like to thank your council for having— If you can just state your name.

Yeah, oh yeah. My name is Jim Hadergaard. I live on 320 Sugar Creek Trail. And you have up to five minutes, sir.

Yeah, just five minutes, that’s fine. My concern is so far I understand from your developer. I’m not here to try to stop your development, but I would like to see your green stand. Why are you going to cut all that trees down?

That’s what I understand you’re going to do. You can do that, but if I’m living on a street, you have a boulevard and I want your tree cut down, I’ll have to fight with your city. Why are you going to be allowed to and take your trees down? It’s beautiful as your way it is.

And we should have green areas, you know? Yeah, there’s trees, but I like it your way it is. Trust effect, if you cut them down, I can get out of my balcony and I can move to your neighbors over in your new development. And I think that shouldn’t be so.

The next thing is your parking. You are allowed one car per unit. Well, how about if he has some visitors? I understand you’re going to have six missing spots, but that’s not much for a new development.

And so are you going to be, or are you going to open up your street on a powered foot so you can park? You can just take a look at sugarcreek trail. My goodness, we have from all your apartments and yes, completely packed. Even sometimes it’s so packed.

You’re parking on your other side. And if I just talk up, yeah, yes, mission, impossible. But it could happen, you know? Who knows?

We never know when that would happen. So that is my concern with your parking and your trees. And I know I can’t stop development. We have to have development.

I’ve got to go forward. I understand that. And, but that’s not my beef. I would like to see, now I hear about your drainage of how it’s going to happen.

Are we going to be able to throw parking lot at 3/20? I think so. Anyhow, thank you very much. I’m glad you’re here, thank you.

Thank you. And I’ll ask the public one more time if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to the rezoning. I see none. I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Lehman, seconded by. Councillor Hillier. Send the vote. The motion carries.

5-0. I’d like to welcome the word Councillor, Marine Cassidy, to the Planning and Environment Committee before I go to committee. I would like to, there were a number of questions asked by the public and I would welcome the applicant. Maybe most of those questions, but staff are for sure.

Staff around the flooding plan, the storm on water management, how that is going to work. I think that question was asked a number of times. Also around the fencing, the proposed fencing, how that is going to work to deal with the lights in particular and access onto the properties. Garbage storage lights, as well as the grading of the property.

Again, as it relates, maybe to the fencing, the snow storage removal. And I’m just making sure I’ve got everything. I think there was another question around that width of green space to the west at 1.5 metres. Is that enough to allow for the trees?

And obviously, how many trees? And maybe I’ll go to staff, if you can speak to some of the questions that the public have. Through you, Madam Chair, quite compact here. I suppose I will start the tree preservation plan.

So I do wanna note that a tree preservation plan was provided and our landscape architect did provide comment on that. And she indicated that she is in support of the setback. That she identified two large trees shrubs along the East property line as boundary. There is protective fencing as proposed and setbacks along the interior side yard is sufficient to protect them.

In terms of any of the other trees, that trees over 50 centimetres cannot be removed until site plan agreement has been issued. So most of these items are done through the site plan process and there’s specifications and requirements manual specifically pertaining to the tree planting protection. And those kind of items are handled through site plan. All the fine tuning of the details of the garbage of the snow removal.

And potentially I’ll get my colleague Mike needs to jump in to speak to the specifications of the site plan process. Thank you. And three, Madam Chair, I kept a running list as well. So I’ll try to work off the list as best as I can.

I’ll start with fencing. The site plan control by a lot talks about a six foot fence in infill situations like this. There’s been direction to the approval 30 to actually consider the seven foot fence that’s identified in the fence by law. So I think going beyond that would be quite challenging because our fence by law is pretty prohibitive of going to beyond and above that.

So I think with that with a resolution and recommendation to the approval authority, we could accommodate a seven foot fence. In terms of the buffer, the applicant based on the plan that we’re seeing, and I will remind the committee that we do not have a site plan application in front of us for us to fully evaluate. But so we’ll kind of speak on generalities at this point. So the buffer that we saw, at least on the conceptual plan appears to meet the one and a half meter minimum kind of buffer landscape strip between parking and property lines.

This is adequate from the site playing control ball as perspective for tree planting. Tree planting itself is generally about one per every 12 meters of linear lot line. So again, the rendering or the graphic that was shown in the report may not be fully descriptive, I guess, detailing what will be planted, but it’s generally one tree for every 12 meters and one for every 15 along the front lot lines. The trees that do go in, I would like to say that they are significant in mature trees.

However, from what I understand from our landscape colleagues is that the more mature of a tree that tries to get transplanted, they don’t thrive. I mean, even the 50 centimeter caliper trees that get planted after we tended to very carefully to ensure that they thrive and grow adequately in a new environment. So the intent is to provide for something that will mature over time. So the space is there with that buffer and there are some larger amenity spaces and I believe the westerly buffer is larger than a meter and a half.

So it does provide a bit of more of a hospitable environment for tree planting. I’ll go to garbage. Garbage, it’s a bit of a question mark for a type of development like this. We generally like to see like a garbage bin or almost like a deep waste would be preferable, like a deep waste collection system in a development like this.

It does provide for both to control odor and smell as opposed to the ground bins. With the stack town as developments like this, you don’t have a garage typically, right? So the idea to provide some place outside for refuse is a good idea. And a deep waste collection is very strongly encouraged by our staff.

Snow storage is also proposed to be located from what I could see in that amenity space in the southeast corner of the lot. And that amenity space is of a reasonable size, I would suggest, and probably adequate for a snow storage situation like that. So we wouldn’t see a situation in this case where we’d suggest taking it off site. However, we’ll have to see what the landscape plan shows with that area and kind of work through that at the site plan stage.

In terms of grading, flooding, stormwater, Ms. Alcatz provided some good preamble to that, but basically, and again, speaking in general, that prior to or post development situations tend to improve the situation from a stormwater and grading perspective. I can’t speak to that design at this point, obviously, because we don’t have a plan in front of us, but generally you tend to control a significant storm events and we look at even up to 250 or sorry, 250 year storm events through the site plan process with our stormwater colleagues. So I think those are the main points that I heard.

The last one I can think of up the top of my head with situations like this is lighting. And if there are parking lot lighting standards proposed, A, we look towards them to be kind of ground oriented so that they’re casting up in the air. Firstly, this is great for our bird friendly initiative. And also we look for a lighting plan to ensure that light cast does not go beyond the property lines.

So those are the main things that I heard and quite similar themes that we hear through a lot of the infill developments that we see in the city. So if there are any other questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you for that. I think you captured most of the questions from the public.

I know there was the one that I forgot to mention about the analysis of the 250 year floodplain as opposed to the 100. The question there is, do we use the 250 year floodplain now? Team Adam Chair, I couldn’t speak to that. I’m not sure if Mr.

Abu Shahada is here who could answer that question in more detail, but the 250 year storm event does seem familiar to me, but maybe he could chime in and provide some feedback on that. Thank you, Michael. My name is Myel Abu Shahada. I’m the manager of development engineering site plan area.

Yeah, the normally is a requirement for site plan is to control up to the 100 storm event within to be contained all within the property. So that makes it really a better situation following development than what’s currently happened with the flow, just sheet flows goes all directions. So we use the 100. We use the 100 and it contained in 12 capacity years.

And the reason why we do that, I just want better further clarification. Oh, the reason why we do that, because the 100 we normally consider is the major event that might affect surrounding properties. So it’s requirement on the applicant to contain within. So that’s makes the situation much better after than before development.

Okay, thank you. So I’ll maybe go to committee for comments. I know the word counselor is here, so maybe I’ll start with you, counsel Cassidy. That’s wonderful.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for letting, for welcoming me to your committee. And I want to thank the neighbors that came out and spoke to this issue today. And actually very articulately laid out the concerns of the neighborhood. I do have a couple of questions, Madam Chair, just looking for some further clarification from possibly the agent or possibly from staff.

So there is quite a drop from the front, from Fanshawe Park Road down to the back of the property. And actually the most of the neighbors are really, even when their property is connected at the side, the way the lots are designed, they’re all at the lower end and the back of the property. And so they are significantly lower than Fanshawe Park Road. So around the grading, will the plan be then to bring the entire site up to the same grade as Fanshawe Park Road?

And that’s possibly something that the agent can answer. Maybe I can start with that question of the agent around the plan for the grading, how that is all going to even out with the budding properties or how it’s going to work. So through you, Madam Chair, Casey, I’ll check you the agent here, kind of to echo what Mr. Pease was saying earlier, we haven’t done a detailed grading exercise for the property at or a stormwater management.

As noted, that is their site plan matters. As required by the city of London existing grades have to match at the property lines. So even if we were to look at raising this property in any way, shape or form, whether it’s by just filling it in with fill or bringing it up using a retaining wall, where our property line meets those neighboring property lines, they have to match as existing today. So it certainly can propose a challenge for any civil engineer.

However, it’s speaking with our engineering team on this project, they have not raised any concerns with regards to the grade change between the front and the rear portions of the subject lands that they are confident that they’ll be able to tie into the existing grades while also providing a stormwater management solution that will improve upon existing conditions and manage the city’s requirements to the one to 100 year event. So the detailed design is still to come, but at this point from the high level, our engineering team has kind of taken a look at it and have said that they don’t see really any pitfalls in designing a grading and stormwater management solution for the site. Councilor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So from listening to the neighbors, the community and hearing them speak tonight, obviously, they’ve been very clear. And so I think it’s pretty clear exactly what their concerns are. When it comes to the stormwater and the drainage, I think what they’re looking for, and what they’re looking for is some comfort from staff. They have heard about other development sites and there was one in Ward 5 where they had done the grade that had been inspected and approved by staff.

And then something happened so that the developer had to go in and do some more moving around of soil and things like that. And what happened after that was a significant amount of flooding then did enter onto a neighboring property. We had some meetings with the developers engineering staff with the city engineering staff and with the homeowners. And it has been resolved to the best of my knowledge.

So that was looked after, but not until some water had entered the neighboring property and some went into the basement. So that’s a concern. And so what we’re hearing tonight is not wanting to go there. And so to make sure that that kind of thing doesn’t happen as this project continues if it is approved tonight and through council.

But I do believe that the neighbors understand the policies of the London plan, understand the policies around intensification. And so I’ve realized that this type of development is likely to occur on this site and are now trying to mitigate some of the effects that this could have on their property. So what I would ask committee tonight to do is to include in the, you know, sometimes we include considerations for development services staff to take in when they go through the site plan phase. And those four four points that I hope the committee will add as part of this, if this is approved, if it is the committee’s desire and will to approve this application.

I hope that they would add. And I hope you’re going to take notes manager. Robust tree planting on the West, the East and the South property lines. A new board on board fencing to the maximum allowed under the bylaw on all three of those sides as well to have ground oriented lighting within the development site to limit spillover onto the neighboring properties and to have a garbage system that will minimize odors such as a deep waste collection type.

So those are the four things that I would hope the committee will add if this, if the approval is going to take place tonight. I will explain the lighting part and the fencing. It’s not that the neighbors don’t want to see these new neighbors, these will be their new neighbors and they’re not trying to shut them out. But since the grade of Fanshawe Park Road is quite high, as cars come in off of Fanshawe Park Road, they will be pointing down because that’s the way the property goes.

And so the worry is that these headlights coming in at night will point down and across a fence that’s considerably lower at the lower end and point into their windows and stuff like that at night. So that’s the concern about the fencing. I really also would like to add, I can’t stress enough to Mr. Kolceki, who is here representing the property owner if Zilinka Prammo and/or the property owner would be willing to sit down and meet with neighbors.

I’ve met with developers and with property owners after the rezoning has taken place and when they’re in the site plan phase, just to have some really good conversations and talk about how things can work to minimize the concerns of neighbors. It’s always very helpful. So I hope you are listening to that, Mr. Kolceki, ‘cause these are reasonable people and they would welcome a conversation with you as time goes on and if and when this gets to the site plan phase.

So those are my comments, Madam Chair, and I hope that committee will consider adding those four criteria in there. Thank you so much. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, I suspect I know the answer, but I don’t want to put words in Councillor Cassidy’s mouth. So I’m hoping that through you, I can ask, ‘cause I certainly heard from the public that they were interested in having this information publicly available to them. Is the desire to also have an H5 holding provision, which is a public plan process?

Oh, go ahead. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. I will go to staff to answer that from what I understand the process of the public being part of that site plan process has been taken away, but I’ll just double check with staff. Through you, Madam Chair.

No, the public site plan process is still intact. You may be speaking about bill 109, which talks about some of the more aggressive timelines for a site plan, but that’s still an opportunity in spite of the bill 109 provisions. Thank you for that clarification. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just threw you and I’m asking if that’s something that the ward Councillor would like to see involved. I think that the public would, but she’s had more engagement with them obviously. So it’s her ward.

I prefer to defer to her judgment on that, but if she’d like that included, I’d be happy to move that along with the other four items that she listed. Councillor Cassidy. So I was under the impression that we could no longer use an H5. And I honestly can’t remember where I heard that from, but that was how I was operating.

Generally, we impose an H5 when it is a very controversial and contentious development application. I suspect an H5 would have been welcomed for the previous Ward 5 planning application that was approved. I think because the neighbors that we heard from today are extremely focused and clear on what they’re asking for. I defer that to the wisdom of committee.

If you want to discuss the merits of an H5, but I do think that if we can get these items, these would be the exact same, very same items that would come forward in a public site plan meeting. So I think we have it out there. And if we can include that tonight, or if you can include that tonight, I think we would solve everything that we would accomplish through an additional public meeting as well. I’ll go to Mr.

Barrett. I see his hand out for further clarification here. Mr. Barrett, welcome.

Welcome, thank you. Madam Chair, just Councillors correct, certainly H5 is committing council’s prerogative. What I can say is we’ve got some fairly explicit direction with respect to direction to site plan that matters to be addressed. But what I can also suggest and commit to you is that we can ensure that the applicants have the opportunity to speak with staff and the neighbors have the opportunity to speak with staff to see how this is being done through the process.

And certainly as was raised, I need the information that is provided as part of the application is also publicly available information. So we can ensure that the staff contacts are provided to the neighbors and they can work with staff as it goes through the site plan process. Like I said, we’ve got some pretty explicit direction on this. So I think it’s fairly easy for us to follow through on this and we can communicate that to the neighbors as to how those matters are being addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. And before I go to the Councillor, I just want to make sure that the community knows that they can reach out to staff at any given time. And I want to make sure I’ve got that correct with contact information that will be provided.

And there’s no sort of, there are opportunities along that process. I just want clarification on that, Mr. Barrett. Sorry, thank you.

Yes, through you, Madam Chair. Yes, what we can do is we can provide a staff contact through this process and then that way the neighbors will have a point of contact through the process. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. So that is wonderful to hear.

And if knowing, you know, watching Mr. Barrett on the screen, knowing that Mr. Barrett and I will not be the ones that are still sitting in front of this committee at the time that this goes through site plan. Yeah, that gives me comfort that the staff will provide some contact information to the community.

And so they have someone to contact going forward. I also have committed to the Wilson’s and the Berberics that I would sit down with whoever is the new Ward 5 Councillor to update that person on the outstanding files in the ward. So they know what’s going on if any issues arise around this. So thank you through you, Madam Chair, to Mr.

Barrett for that commitment to work with the community. And again, I hope that the applicant is listening and that they also are involved in this kind of community engagement. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll just go to committee members just to refresh your page. There are the added four items added to the recommendation robust tree planting on the West East self boundary lines board on board fencing on the West East and self boundary lines. Ground oriented lighting within the site and garbage system that will minimize orders such as deep collection site and committee. And in your hands, Councillor Lewis.

So I think that the items seven, the board on board fencing on the West East and self property lines, I think we just need to add in there to the maximum height allowed by the bylaw as Mr. P’s did indicate that six foot is standard but that they could go to seven. So if we could just add that maximum height component. I hear the clerk typing madly.

And so with that committee in for a motion, Councillor Lewis. With those additions from Councillor Cassidy, I will move the staff recommendation. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Hillier. Any further comments from committee members?

I see none. I just want to thank the public for coming here and speaking to this application. I really appreciate the fact that a lot of the concerns are yet answered because the site plan process has not started but keeping in mind that you could reach out to staff and the word Councillor as we go through this process. I am with that we can proceed to vote and thanks again.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. With that, I would like to go to committee for a dinner break if you’re willing to have it. I know we’ve passed six 30 but if we could be back at seven 15, would that work for everyone? Get a thumbs up from Councillor Hillier and do a net of a vote on that or we can, oh hand vote on coming back at seven 15, hand vote.

Motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’ll be back then, thank you. So welcome back. I think we do have quorum and I will go to the next item which is a 3.6 a public participation meeting for 4, 5, 1, 9, 4, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5, 7, Colonel Albert Road.

I wanna make sure I’m on the right one ‘cause that break. You never know where I go sometimes but it is 3.6. So with that, I’ll go to committee and open up the public participation meeting. Move by Councillor Layman and seconded by Councillor Hillier.

Councillor Hillier, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Go to staff Elena Riley for the staff presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a zoning by-law amendment application pertaining to a portion of the properties meaningfully addressed as 4, 5, 1, 9, to 4, 5, 5, 7, Colonel Talbot Road. The subject site is located on the west side of Colonel Talbot, south of Longwoods Road. The site has a frontage of approximately 156 meters along Colonel Talbot, total lot area of 61 hectares. Property is divided by the Dingman Creek with the front portion along Colonel Talbot as being within the urban growth boundary, which is approximately six sectors of developable lands, which does include a portion identified as having significant features and functions, along with some steep slopes and erosion allowance adjacent to the creek.

The balance of the property is outside of the urban growth boundary and rural remain as agricultural lands and natural heritage. Generally, the surrounding uses consist of predominantly agricultural lands to the west and south of the subject lands. And the Lambeth community is located to the east side of Colonel Talbot, predominantly comprised of single detached along Colonel Talbot to the north and south and along the east side, there’s a mix of low density residential and commercial. Moving on to slide three, looking at the proposed development, the requested amendments were to facilitate a development consisting of 80 townhouses towards the rear of the site in 62 back-to-back stack townhouses along the Colonel Talbot frontage.

Access to the residential dwellings is proposed via a loop private road network with two entrances and two amenity spaces are provided with the larger space located next to the private stormwater management pond. Slide four just shows the proposed development elevations. You can see that there’s the proposed elevations for the townhouses on the top and the stack townhouses on the bottom. Looking at the policy context, we’re looking at the London plan within the neighborhood place type on a urban thoroughfare, which does permit low-rise residential uses such as townhouses, deck towns, triplexes, low-rise apartments, standard heights from a minimum of two maximum four or consideration of six.

I do want to note that this site is identified as being within a significant valley lands on map number five. Policies within the London plan generally support this application. Looking at the 1989 official plan, these lands are in low-density residential, multifamily, medium density residential. Low-density does permit semis, singles, duplexes, multi- or medium does allow for multiple attach rowhouses, clusters, et cetera.

Looking at the height, it’s normal, height limitations will not exceed four. And looking at the density, medium density residential development will not exceed an approximate net density of 75. I do also want to note that the site is identified as being within the big picture, meta-cores, meta-cores policy in the 1989 official plan. Looking at these policies, the 89OP generally supports the requested amendments.

Moving on to the next slide, with regards to the southwest area plan, the primary permitted uses are again in the low density and multifamily, because that’s what it’s directed to the 1989 official plan. So looking at the density, we did look at in the swap the minimum of 18 maximum of 35 in the low, and the median does the 30 and up to 75. There was recently a housekeeping amendment, which did align the 89 plan with the London plan to remove the bonusing, and does permit site-specific zoning of up to 100. And looking also with regards to the environmental, the development occurs within distances adjacent to natural heritage features, it does trigger the EIS.

I should note the EIS has been completed, and there was some recommendations from EPAC, and they have been addressed through the application of the holding provision, which I’m about to speak about. So looking at the zoning on slide number seven, we are recommending zoning to accommodate the proposed development along Colonel Talbot with an open space zone at the rear, as a result of some revisions made to the application and in response to some urban design, site plan, parks, and as mentioned, ecology and EPAC. We did include special provisions for rear yard and interior, and I do wanna note that an amended by-law has been submitted to be very specific with the rear and interior side yard setback for the 2.5, and it also addresses the landscape strip along the internal drive. So if you look at that amended by-law, it’s very specific now, that was submitted.

Moving on, we did also recommend a holding provision to ensure that all issues regarding hydrogeological, erosion maintenance, erosion structural geotechnical, slope stability will all be dealt with through the site plan approval process. Overall, the proposed development and recommended amendments are consistent with the PPS in conform to the London plan. They also are in conformity with the ‘89 plan and the South West area plan, the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the built area boundary with an appropriate form development. I do wanna make note at the end of this that through the holding provision, the development limit may change a little bit due to the outcome of the studies.

But for now, this is what we are proposing. Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to now go to the agent for the applicant.

Yes, thank you. Yeah, welcome, and you have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, line up for the presentation for proposed application.

My name is Nick Dijak. I am a planner with SPM and the agent on the application. We’ve reviewed the staff board and Bala amendment for a today and they’re certainly supportive of the staff recommendation, including the holding provision. And we feel this conceptual site design and the building designs are provided and the planning reports represent a high quality development.

And it’s an architecturally designed to suit the neighborhood, be cognizant of where it’s located next to the Dingman Creek and the heritage buildings and the existing community. So we do feel that it would be a statement piece as you entered the city from highway 401-402 to the south and think it would be an excellent addition to the existing community. We also feel that the requested city provisions reflect a very minor change relative to the R65 and R84 zones. It will produce very little to no impact to the surrounding properties.

So we hope a committee will agree with and support development moving forward. And lastly, I did want to mention that there are a number of listed items for urban design considerations and design considerations and we’re quite confident that through the site planning control process that those would be adequately addressed. So thank you. Thank you.

Oh, I should have asked the committee any technical questions from staff or the agent? I see none. So I will now go to the public if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to the amendment in front of us. I see none.

I’d like to ask one more time. If there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation coming forward, and I think I’ll last one more time. I know I have a full speakers here. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this, please come forward.

I hear and see none. So I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman. Seconded by Councillor Turner.

Councillor Hillier, sorry. Thank you, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. And with that, I’d like to turn over the chair to Vice Chair, Councillor Layman.

This is in my ward. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, and I don’t see anyone on the list, except you, so I’ll go to you first. Okay, thank you.

And I want to, first of all, thank staff. This was, you can see from the recommendation, the technical work that has gone into this and a lot of time. And I really appreciate the work that staff have done on this. I also want to thank the applicant for holding an open house.

I think it was at the beginning of the year, and I know residents did attend that open house with a number of questions that were answered. And I feel that this development policy support this type of intensification, but I do have a question through you, Chair, to staff around, about how we connect these, developments. This is in a very, a one-time rural area. And as we develop it, we need to be able to move around other than just using our cars.

And this stretch of Colonel Talbot is always a challenge coming off the 401, and not only with speed, but just how we move around our neighborhoods safely is something that I hear quite often. And I’m just wondering, maybe I can ask this question to the agent, but sidewalks. There’s no sidewalks in this area. And I think we need to be able to connect some of these developments in a way, and this is where we should be, maybe having that conversation.

I know there was a justification report and opportunities for sidewalks. So maybe I can get clarification about that. So there’s two things. One I gather is mobility with this development, and there’s in that area.

And then sidewalks, which maybe we’ll go to the agent on that for, or second, but first I like to go to staff with just general remarks about the Councilor’s concern about mobility in the area and the various new developments connecting. Sorry, through you, Madam Chair. Was that a question about, is there sidewalks in the area? ‘Cause if that was a question, I couldn’t quite hear there.

The sidewalk is just to the north, the property to the monarch. And in the planning justification reports submitted by the applicant, correct me if I’m wrong, what I believe it indicates that the sidewalk will be extended to the access point of the development. Ms. Riley, we were also looking for comments regarding general mobility between the various of this development and various other developments that are coming online recently and down the road.

I believe, just for context, I believe the Councilor specifically referenced transit. So, are you, you’re looking for the sidewalks for the larger area? Ms. Riley, let’s leave sidewalks aside for now.

Let’s just talk about general mobility. You’re just kidding. I apologize, you’re cutting in and out on me. I apologize.

Sorry, I’ll speak closer to the mic. We’re just looking for comments regarding general traffic mobility. In this area, as this becomes more developed and with this new development, plus others that are on the books and have recently been completed, the Councilor is concerned about how people are getting around in general. Let’s leave sidewalks out for now.

Okay, transportation respond to that. These, this application and does not have any upfronts of concerns. With regards to overall development in the area, I will refer to transportation for that. Sure.

This is the whole, I can add a little bit on that section. Mobility in general will be reviewed part of the mobility master plan, which is happening at the moment. We don’t have any specific to serve at this point. Councilor, where do you wanna go with this?

Thank you for that information. And I think it’s important for the public to realize that we are going through a mobility plan and there’s always public input through that mobility plan. I would like to make an amendment or add a clause about the connectivity of that sidewalk that is just to the north and how it connects down to the access to the development on the west side and sort of having that connectivity. So there’s other opportunities for the community to move around as opposed to walking on the side of the road.

It’s a great opportunity. I’m really glad that it is part of, it’s acknowledged in the justification report, but I would like to maybe add that clause that sidewalks be connected from the north to the connection on the west side to the development. And I’m looking for a seconder. I think it’s really an opportunity here to, like I said, have that connection with sidewalks in this community.

I need to go to the clerk because I fumbled the ball in the last time we did this. Do I need a second for that amendment? I have a second, please. Councillor Lewis will second that.

Councillor, do you have any other? I know I’m hoping the committee will support that. It was conversation through the justification report on how we can connect the sidewalks. But this is, like I said, at one time a rural area and as we develop, we should be able to have other opportunities of moving around.

Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I’ll just say to Councillor Hopkins, thank you for bringing this amendment forward.

I know it’s your word and it’s important to you, but I think one of the things that I have learned over the four years that we’ve been on council is it’s better to put the sidewalks in when the development happens than try and retrofit after the fact. And so this is some future proofing as development continues in that area. So happy to support that. Thank you.

And if I may, Chair, just to follow up with my comments and just to sort of end it, I am really pleased to see this holding provision. It’s gotta have a special number to it ‘cause it is a special holding provision as we develop in this very sensitive area. And the unanswered questions that still remain through that side plan process, how we’re gonna deal with that development. And we heard from staff that is still to be determined that I’m really pleased to see the holding provision in this out recommendation and supportive of it.

Mr. Barrett, I see your hand raised. Do you wanna comment? Thank you through the chair.

It’s just to the last point. I just wanted to point out that in the directions to the committee or to the approval authority, sorry, in the recommendation. Number seven, I think speaks to the issue that the council has concerned about earlier, which says that connect the proposed city sidewalk in its ultimate location to the existing sidewalk to the north as an interim condition prior to any future redevelopment of the neighborhood sites or reconstruction of the road. So there was direction in there about pursuing that sidewalk connection.

All right, Councilor, do a hug comment on that? Yeah, thank you. I did not see that one up at the top there. So that was my concern.

It’s already in the recommendation. So I’m really pleased to see that in there. And I probably don’t need to emphasize it again, but I think it’s really important that we deal with the sidewalk issue as we develop with these applications. So I guess I can remove it ‘cause it’s basically reiterating what’s all over there.

And thank you, Mr. Barrett, for bringing it to my attention. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Barrett.

And we’ll remove that amendment. Other comments or questions? Well, seeing none, then I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Being on to 3.7, which is a public participation meeting for 604 Beaverbrook Avenue, looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here is seconded by Councillor Layman. Councillor Turner, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Presentation from staff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did come up with a quick presentation. However, due to timing, I’m just gonna quickly just go over what the application is about. So this is just an official plan amendment and a rezoning to permit a 32 units stack townhouse development.

There are a couple of special provisions within the bonus zoning that they’ve asked for, for height and a couple of yard setbacks. They are in exchange for the bonus thing, providing affordable housing and exceptional design. And staff are moving forward and have recommended the amendments for the site-specific policy to allure to allow for the four-story stack townhouse development and the residential units per hectare of 92. Thank you.

Thank you. Any technical questions? We see none. I’ll go to the agent for the applicant.

The agent is here. Yes, through you, Madam Chair. This is Caitlin Crowley with Celine Capriama. Welcome.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank Elena Riley, first of all, for her work on this. I know there was a lot of back and forth and modifications and comments. So I just wanted to thank her for work on this.

I have heard the staff report and agree with staff’s recommendation for approval. And we do believe that this is a modern modest bill form for Beaverbrook Avenue and would urge the committee to consider staff’s recommendation and I will be available to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you.

I’d like to go to the public now if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to the recommendation in front of us. If you could come forward with your name, address if you wish. I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments. And with that, I will go to the committee to close the public participation meeting moved by.

Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lewis. If we can proceed to vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And I’d like to go to committee for comments.

Councillor Hill here. Oh, yes, just a quick comment. I believe we had a gentleman for 3.5, 767 Fanshawe from Sugar Creek Trail. I believe his comments should be put on this file.

I think they were, he spoke at the wrong time. I’m just looking at the address he had and what’s on the screen now. Through the chair, yes, that is correct, Councillor Hill here. I just want to confirm that with the clerk that she has that.

Yes, that was Jim. I’m sorry, I didn’t catch his last name for 320 Sugar Creek Trail. I will put his comments in. Thank you, and I’ll ask one more time from the public if there’s, oh, I’m going to the, we’ve already done that.

We’re, I’m going to committee, comments, motion. Councillor Lewis. I’ll move the staff recommendation, Madam Chair. And seconded by Councillor Layman.

There’s no further comments. We can proceed to vote. And the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, so moving on to the next one, which is a 3.8, a public participation meeting for 712 baseline road east.

We need to open up the BPM, Councillor Hill here. Seconded by Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So welcome for staff presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Good evening, everyone.

The presentation for this application can be found starting on page 362 of the added agenda. This is a zoning by-law amendment pertaining to the property, municipally addressed as 712 baseline road east. The subject site is its own parcel and previously contained a beer store, which was recently closed in 2021. The subject site is surrounded on three sides by a larger commercial development known as Wellington Gate, which is in the process of redevelopment.

To the south of the subject site is the London Health Sciences Center. The requested amendments are to facilitate the development of a 16-storey mixed-use apartment building with 150 residential units and 547 square meters of commercial and office uses on the first floor, as shown on slide three, page 364 of the added agenda. The applicant is also seeking a bonus zone to implement the proposed development with special provisions, including permitting reductions in front, rear and side yards, reducing parking, increased coverage, and recognizing a portion of the site as a drive-through for an adjacent development. The implementation of the bonus zone is in exchange for facilities, services, and matters proposed by the applicant, which include building design and affordable housing.

Staff are also recommending a base residential R9-7 zone to allow for a 12-storey mixed-use apartment building at a maximum density of 150 units per hectare should development not proceed by way of bonus zone. Slide four on page 365 shows the proposed elevation. The building is oriented to an access to the site will be from baseline road. Parking on the site will be incorporated through two underground levels and two above ground levels for a total of 134 spaces.

The subject lands are located within the rapid transit corridor place type on a neighborhood connector. Mixed-use buildings are encouraged. Heights within this place type range from a minimum of two stories with consideration for up to 12 stories, or if located within 100 meters of a rapid transit station, heights of up to 16 stories may also be considered. Generally, policies within the London Plan support the requested amendments.

The applicant requested the use of bonus provisions to allow the increase in density and height. For affordable housing, the calculation of the lift to determine the total number of affordable housing units is based on the policies of the 1989 Official Plan. So using a base density of 150 units per hectare, it would equate to 36 units for a site of 0.24 hectares. The increase above the base permission, therefore, is an additional 121 units based on the current proposal of 150 residential units plus 5.5 commercial units.

A rate of 10% of that total increase in units equates to 12.1 units, which is the lift for the site, and is the consistent approach to calculating the total number of affordable housing units through a bonus zone. The 12 units are to be representative of the mixed overall and distributed evenly throughout the development to the greatest extent possible. The units were based on 80% of the average market rent for a duration of 50 years. Normally, as part of the bonus zone, drawings, site concepts, and renderings would be attached to the zoning by-law amendment to facilitate the exact development as proposed.

However, in order to advance this application and ensure bonusing can be locked in and implemented prior to that September deadline, staff are recommending design criteria to be implemented in the bonus zone, to assist with the site plan submission and ensure any development meets the design policies of the London plan. Slide seven, page 368. As mentioned previously, the recommended base R9-7 zone permits apartment buildings, as well as additional commercial and office uses restricted to the first floor at a height of 12 stories and a density of 150 units per hectare. The bonus zone permits the 16-story height, mixed use commercial office and residential apartment building with 150 residential units, 547 square meters of commercial office uses on the first floor and a maximum mixed use density of 654 units per hectare with additional special provisions.

Staff have also recommended the addition of a holding provision to ensure adequate sanitary services are available for this site. At this time, the city will be accommodated in the sanitary servicing within its rapid transit project along Wellington Road. However, the expected timing for these upgrades is 2026. Whether this site can be serviced via the rapid transit project or through other servicing solutions, a holding provision is necessary to ensure adequate sanitary servicing is available within a reasonable time frame.

Overall, proposed development and recommended amendments are consistent with the provincial policy statement and conform to the London plan. The recommended amendment is also in conformity with the 1989 official plan, including the policies related to bonus zoning and the calculation of lift. The recommended policy amendment facilitates the development of a site within the built area boundary and the primary transit area with an appropriate form of infill development. I’m available for any questions.

Thank you. Any technical questions, Councillor Layman? Thank you. With the London plan passed by this council, why are we still referring to 1989 plan for bonusing?

Through you, Mr. Through you, Madam Chair. So the 1989 official plan is the only plan that actually had bonusing provisions entrenched within it. The London plan, from what I understand, those policies were never actually in full force in effect, rather.

They were never approved by the OLT. And in fact, have recently actually been completely removed based on our most recent decision from the OLT. So in true form, the 1989 official plan is really where those policies are nested. And that’s what we rely on in order for these applications to move through the process.

Thank you. And any further technical questions? Mr. Barrett, sorry.

I have a hard time sometimes seeing that hand. Mr. Barrett? Thank you, few Madam Chair.

I just wanted to add to Ms. Pasado’s comments just for the Councillor. This question has arisen in the past in some of the recent applications. And I just wanted to remind the members of the committee.

As Ms. Pasado said, the policies of the London plan as it relates to bonusing were in the first of appeals from day one of the appeals to the London plan. And therefore, we’re not able to be relied on at all. So through all of the periods since the plan was under appeal, we have relied on section 19.4.4 of the 1989 official plan for the discussion of the calculation of bonusing.

And that spoke only to density. It didn’t speak to the difference or the change in heights, which were the permissions contemplated in the London plan. As Ms. Pasado also said in the last hearing where all of the matters that were before the board were finally determined and settled out.

In fact, all of the bonusing policies that did exist in the London plan were removed because as this council knows tonight is the last hurrah for bonusing as it existed in the planning act. So in anticipation of that, in fact, all mention of bonusing and bonusing policies were removed from the now approved and enforced policy for London plan. This position was also upheld in the decision of the OLT as it relates to the medallion development, which was a huge hearing that actually turned on bonusing and the application of the bonusing policies. And in its decision, the board actually made reference to the fact that the London plan policies were not enforced in effect and that the city had used and the practice and the only policies that were enforced that could be used for those of the 1989 official plan.

So I just wanted to remind council and the members of the committee of that position. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Thank you, Mr.

Barrett, for our thorough explanation and you did it in a way that I actually understand it, which is pretty good for me and so thank you. Councillor Lewis, we’re on technical questions of staff at the moment. So two technical questions through you, Madam Chair. And I’m gonna ask this upfront as a technical because Ms.

Basato did reference the holding provision on the servicing and we did receive a communication from the applicant that they only found out that the servicing may not be sufficient a couple of weeks ago. So when did we know that there might be a servicing issue or I guess more fairly the question to Ms. Basato is ‘cause I heard, I think I heard, if I’m incorrect, I apologize for that, but that the servicing may not be adequate that there might need to be some more work done on that. So what sort of timeline would we be looking at to determine whether or not the servicing is in fact adequate?

Through you, Madam Chair, through this process, the issue with respect to the current application, a servicing capacity analysis was provided by the applicant to staff. It was reviewed but determined that it was insufficient and had several parameters that were not quite correct. Based on that, sanitary servicing staff were able to understand or rather advance that there would be the ability to service these lands essentially through that BRT expansion along Wellington Road. That information was relayed in April.

And so a holding provision was requested at that time. At this point, it’s unknown basically if there is another servicing solution, potentially for this site, there may be the ability to revise that servicing capacity analysis. We’re not sure yet, but we do know, I guess, the city has a level of comfort going forward that we have a servicing solution potentially in place through the Wellington Road reconstruction and through that. However, if in the interim through site plan, there is the ability that the staff and the engineers can work together to potentially come up with a different solution or a temporary solution.

Maybe there’s the ability to do that as well. But the most important thing is essentially to highlight that, holding provision that we’ve applied which will be in place until a service and solution is found. Second question? Yes, and I’ll say thank you, Ms.

Pissato. That was very helpful on that particular question. My second question, and again, this is, I hope that you see this as technical chair and I think it’s gonna come up for the rest of the meeting. So perhaps it’s best to ask it now so that we can get a response from, probably from Mr.

Barrett, I suspect, but so the London plan is now fully in force, is my understanding and that these applications are only allowed to have some 1989 plan official consideration because they were received within the timeframe that allows that. So my question is, after tonight, how are we going to determine these criteria? If, for example, the applicant were to withdraw this application and bring back something new in a month, what are we looking at to determine the lift density at that point? Because the bonusing is gone.

So one of the London plan, what are we going to use moving forward? Mr. Barrett or Ms. Pissato, Mr.

Barrett? I guess I’ll take the first cut. The London plan approach in the London plan provides for the potential for two heights to be achieved. First height is called the standard maximum.

The policies in the plan, in fact, don’t, that’s not an as of right permission. I think it’s very important to understand. That is a limit that can be considered and implemented through zoning. And it starts with an understanding of the appropriateness of the requested height within the context of the area.

And it has specific policies that speak to the matters to be addressed. The plan then provides for the opportunity without an amendment to the plan, but through zoning bylaw amendment to go to a height beyond that standard maximum. And that points to the policies of the planning impact analysis that speak to a full consideration of all of the policies in the plan and how that proposed development at that greater height and intensity addresses and meets all of those policies. So in fact, the test becomes the compliance of that proposal with all of the policies of the plan.

That would consider such things as affordable housing, as the appropriate levels of design and context. It would consider the application with respect to public facilities that may be incorporated as part of that. So the plan speaks to the broad range of considerations that would have to be in play in order to consider a height beyond the standard height. So that’s how that would play out from a policy perspective.

How that’s going to be implemented in zoning is certainly something that we’re going to be working on through the rethinking zoning project and the update of the Z1 zoning bylaw. But for the time being, it would be along much the same way as we’ve been doing now without the benefit of a section 37 bonus in agreement, but where we would be bringing forward special provisions that would identify those conditions that could be regulated in zoning that would support an increase in height. But as I said, the two column approaches, we’ve called it to help folks understand, starts with, first of all, a justification to even reach the upper limits of the standard heights, not the jump up to what may be an ultimate height beyond that. Councillor Villas.

So one final question in regard to the technical aspects of this site and the lift to the London Plan calculations, is this in an area that is designated as a primary transit corridor area moving forward? Through you, Madam Chair, it is within the primary transit area. So it is within that policy consideration and is also within the built area boundary. Therefore, there are a set of policies that are provided for that area.

Councillor Lewis satisfied. Thank you. - Yeah, that’s helpful. Thank you.

I think that is any other technical questions with the staff, see none, I will go to the applicant or the agent for the applicant if you are here. Oh, Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yeah, welcome.

And if you can state your name and you have up to five minutes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Manish Pardar. I am the agent for the applicant.

I am with SPM Engineering. As you’ve discussed, there are a couple of different factors here that are influencing the bonus thing. But before I get to that, I would like to thank Nance Pasado and City staff for working with us and developing the special provisions for the base zone, which we have no issue with. With respect to the holding and the servicing, we are looking to have, we have no issue in principle with the holding zone, but we want to ensure that we have the opportunity to lift that through site plan approval at a time, not necessarily 2026, but when site plan approval can happen and when we can verify that servicing capacity is not an issue.

So that would be my second point. As far as the bonus thing of this property goes, I’d like to preface it with saying that, even though we are looking at a 16 story tower today, the intention for these lands is to develop them over the long term and to include additional residential density, to include very transit oriented development. So as we’ve provided in our master plan to the or the master plan concept of the city, we would be looking to provide a transition from what you see today to more residential, to more mixed use, to more amenity space, green space, those sorts of things that are very suitable and would be supportive of the bus traffic transit. Keep in mind that smart moves has a prediction of having a transit ridership of about 20% of the population in 2030.

So we are kind of anticipating our responsibilities now in terms of what is feasible now, the space that we have allocated, our commitments to existing tenants in that plaza and what we have to maintain for them. So as far as the affordable bonus, sorry, as far as the housing goes, with the housing, there is a difference of opinion and I think that was alluded to earlier through some of the questions raised by the different counselors. And I’m really here to provide the best information I’m obviously not the decision maker tonight. But what I will say is that from the start of the process with city staff, it was always, and it’s stated in the record of consultation that bonus thing would be given under the London plan policies.

So we have attributed the bonus thing that we’re doing in accordance with the lift that is commensurate with the London plan. And in that case, our initial give would be five units based on the London plan height lift rather than the density lift. So recognizing where the city is today and recognizing that this is sort of a critical moment in terms of bonusing and securing affordable housing, we are willing to work with staff and provide a sort of a middle ground. So if 12 is where the 89 plan is and five is where the London plan is, we hope that we can meet at eight affordable units.

And that is a significant contribution. We are offering about $2.4 million towards affordable housing there. I also want to point out that we are, in terms of development charges, not including the commercial component providing a boat, just under $3 million in development charges to the city. And as far as ongoing taxes, we’re about three quarters of a million dollars in annual taxes to the city as well.

So again, thinking about it in terms of the contribution in the near term, but also thinking about it in the contribution as bus rapid transit evolves, that’s something that we would like to reiterate to counsel or sorry, to pick. You just have just under one minute left. All right, thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess there are a few specific points with regards to design.

There are certain design elements that we’ve been asked for that we’d like to review with staff and potentially have removed. And so in the interest of time, I’ll list them quickly. They asked for a functional four-court. We cannot provide a functional four-court given the space limitations.

Also the increased setback of two to four meters. They have a specific request with regards to the podium at the four stories, having a five-meter setback. We do provide a setback. And it does provide them in a space and define the building from the base to the middle.

So we would like to review those with staff and potentially have them removed. But again, in principle, we are looking forward to working with the city and hopefully getting the bonus being supported and recognizing our development for the high quality attributes that will contribute to the city. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I’d like to go to the public now. If there’s anyone in the public that would like to speak to this application, you could come forward. Please state your name and address if you wish and you have up to five minutes, so welcome. Hi, my name is Patricia Green and I live in North London, or Old North that is.

I haven’t researched this presentation and just from sitting here for the last hour, I’ve seen proposals and proposals come forward and I’ve seen buildings go up in London consistently and correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood he said eight units out of something like 150 would be affordable units. And it seems to me that’s a very small number and maybe I misheard it. So my main consideration is really how many affordable units are there going to be in this development, excuse me. That’s all.

Thank you. Is anyone else that would like to speak to this recommendation? Please come forward and I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak, please come forward.

I’ll go to committee now to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Lehman and seconded by Councillor Lewis. You can proceed to vote. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

And just before the committee for comments, I would like to address the question that came from the public with this recommendation that has come to us. How many affordable units if staff can respond, please? Three-year madam chair. So the staff recommendation is for 12 affordable housing units based on this application.

And the applicant has provided through a written response on the out of the agenda for eight affordable housing units. Just to clarify. Thank you. Okay, committee, I’ll go to you.

Councillor Turner. I’d like to start by moving the staff recommendation. You look for a seconder there. I’d be happy to second.

Great, thanks. So I think what’s the recommendation from staff is reasonable. I think the application here is a great space under a great use of underutilized space. It’s exactly what we were looking to do with rapid transit corridor to provide that land value uplift to provide density transit or into development.

It’s got all those things. And on top of that, it’s achieving financing and that financing allows us to leverage some affordable housing as well. So this, as mentioned, will be our last opportunity to do that for some time. I think it’s really important that we continue to move forward wherever we can.

I think I heard Councillor Lewis ask about whether this sits in the primary major transit corridors. This is one of those and would be there for eligible for inclusionary zoning. Should the city move forward with that policy a little bit later, but that’s a different way of achieving affordable housing than this. And I’m a little concerned by the questions I heard from my colleagues and also from the response from the applicant.

I think this is the risk. This is the risk of providing some give or some indication of give in other areas because then everybody else will ask me too. And that’s exactly what we just saw here. And it seems trivial when we’re talking about one application, but the domino effect of it is massive.

It undermines the policies. Mr. Barrett and Ms. Passato explain quite well why the 89 official plan is the basis for the use of this.

And not only did they do that, but so did the Ontario Land’s Tribunal, which supported the basis for the policy as it’s implemented and as it exists. This is our last day for it. So I’d encourage you to pass this as recommended there. Perhaps I have a question that’s for you, Madam Chair, to Ms.

Passato. The applicant made some requests with specific reference to some of the way the building cited some of the four courts, things like that. Is there still opportunity for discussion on those or since this is a bonus building, we take it in the form that’s presented right now? Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Turner.

So with the bonus zone, because they are looking for urban design considerations, essentially, a lot of those features have been incorporated into this bonus zone. So these are things that we are looking for essentially for the site. There was a reason why we didn’t attach the renderings, et cetera, to this particular one, because from that perspective, the renderings that were provided were not quite what we would expect based on the London Plan policies for urban design, et cetera. So if we’re going to be bonusing essentially for urban design that we need to also consider then the policies of the plan and ensuring that anything going forward meets those policies as well.

And that’s why those things are entrenched in the bonus zone. So that’ll be something that the applicant will need to work on when they come forward with their ultimate site plan is ensuring that the comments received from urban design in the bonus zone, as well as comments received from the urban design peer review panel are ultimately reflected in that final site plan that comes in to staff. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you, Ms. Bassado.

So ultimately, the final form still hasn’t been determined yet. It still has yet to be worked on with staff. It was opportunities where recommendations from the peer review panel may not be executable. I’d imagine staff would take a look to say, okay, that’s a reasonable ballot comment.

And we’ll work with its normal discretion to be able to execute those, is that correct? Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Turner, yes, I would agree that site, it would be a process with the site plan and urban design through the site plan process to ensure there are items or issues that arise through that bonus zone that cannot be achievable for whatever reason, then they will obviously be discussed and worked upon that site plan as well. Just to note, I think part of the issue with the site is also that a portion of it is actually going to be developed for an adjacent commercial use. So a portion of the site is actually gone.

So it actually reduces further this site, which makes it maybe difficult then for perhaps some of these items to be incorporated from the applicant’s perspective. But I think really what it comes down to is going back kind of to the drawing board and taking those considerations to harden that providing a site plan that I think reflects more the bonus in provisions that were, like as I mentioned previously. Councillor and Madam Chair, thank you, Ms. Pozato, I really appreciate those.

So ultimately, this is the first, I believe, of several buildings that are being proposed for this site. This is, I’m excited to see the redevelopment of this plaza. It’s set empty and underutilized for a long time. This is a key location for development within the city.

It’s close to shopping. It’s close to work. It’s 3,000 plus people work over at LHSC. It’s right on the rapid transit line.

I think we’re looking towards a really good opportunity here. So I hope my colleagues will pass it as proposed and as moved here. I think that’s very important. I think we’re also talking as we continue about affordable housing.

We need the crisis that we have right now is in the lack of affordable housing most. And we need to be doing everything that we can to address that. We just spent a week talking about it with ministers in Ottawa. This is our opportunity to do so.

Councillor Lewis, I’ll go to committee members first. I recognize Councillor Van Aunst is here as well. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I’m going to offer some comments here. And here’s my dilemma, and I’m not sure whether I’m going to vote for the staff recommendation or not. We’ve all said already tonight, everybody’s acknowledged. This is the last meeting where bonusing under the old rules can apply.

We’ve heard that in the London Plan moving forward, there’s a column A and a column B or a column 1 and a column 2. And it’s going to be open very much to interpretation what parts of those columns are applied to get to the standard height. And then what parts of those are, there is no formula. There is no policy.

It’s going to be interpretation moving forward. And yes, there’s no doubt that we have an affordable housing crisis. And I think it’s really important to address through you, Madam Chair, or what we heard from the member of the public in terms of how those numbers are arrived at. Right now, there’s basically a right of ownership.

So if they build up to the maximum height they’re allowed under zoning, they don’t have to provide any affordable housing. It’s only on those stories above what the zoning allows currently, where they can negotiate some affordable housing in for the ability to go higher tonight’s the last night that that’s going to be an option at all. So I want those affordable units, but I’m also keenly aware that in some affordable housing agreements we’ve gotten over the last couple of years, there’s not shovels in the ground. In fact, some of the ones where we’ve had bonus zones approved at 50 years of affordable AMR at various levels, those properties have actually gone back up on the market.

So the applications that we approved here are never going to come to light. Those properties are up for sale now. And when they’re sold, a new developer is going to bring forward a new application. And it’s going to be under the London plan.

And we are not going to necessarily be able to enforce those agreements we got in place. So the question to me now is, do we take what is available in hand today? Or do we roll the dice and hope that if this is appealed, the appeal is upheld, or that the application is simply not withdrawn and the property put on the market and another application comes forward in a year? It’s a tough situation to be in because everybody wants the affordable housing.

There’s no question about that. But we have properties sitting out there that we’re supposed to be providing affordable housing. And the economics have changed and the developer is not building it. They’ve put the property up for sale.

We have a developer here tonight who’s got a record of building things, which I appreciate very much. Westdale has properties they developed in my ward and I know in wards across the city. So we’ve got a local developer who’s got a record of actually building. So I’m torn between, they’re saying they can do eight.

Staff is saying they should do 12. But ultimately we could end up with zero. And that’s the fact of properties where we’ve negotiated affordable housing have gone up for sale, tells me that that’s a possibility. So I’m gonna listen to what other members of the committee and council have to say.

But at the end of the day, I wanna see shovels in the ground so that those units are actually built that they don’t just exist on paper because it is a reality out there. We have had a couple of properties go up for sale already. We have properties that we approved over a year ago that don’t have a shovel in the ground yet. That’s not creating affordable housing either.

So at the end of the day, it’s the developer who’s gonna decide whether or not they go forward, not us. We are setting the parameters around whether or not it’s feasible for them to do so. So I’ll listen to what colleagues have to say. I genuinely will, but tonight’s the night.

It’s now or we roll the dice on what we get in the future. Any other committee members before I go to visiting councillors? I see none. Our councillor layman.

Yeah, I’ll still listen to what the other councillors have to say is this dilemma. We’re up against it. We all want development longest corridor. We want affordable housing.

This is the last cycle we have. I’m frustrated that we’re thrown in kind of a bit of the bargaining here. I would have preferred to see either the staff recommendation or staff. We don’t recommend it based on what the application is.

My concern is if we don’t approve it tonight, that we will lose the bonuses and be a delay in whatever comes forward later on. My concern is if we approve it tonight, the developer will not build it because of economics, as councillor Lewis said, or sit on it, but I don’t know. So like I said, this is the last, we all said this is the last time we’re going to be considering this type of question. And we don’t have another cycle to go for board and seeing it’s gone.

So that’s my dilemma. So I’m just going to listen to what other councillors have to say. Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So first let me also say that I’m thrilled about this development coming forward eight years ago when we first started out. I was approached about a development here and surprised it had never happened and long wished that it would have. However, the one being proposed today is much superior to that in terms of the needs we have today. And of course, there are probably hundreds of employees at the hospital across the street wondering if they’ll have a chance to move into this and be able to walk to work.

So there’s lots of reasons that we would want to have this. I recognize the dilemma we’re up against in terms of affordable housing. I would say that something is better than nothing. And my perspective is a little different.

It’s not a matter of are we going to get eight affordable units or should we go up to 12? The affordable units may not be as significant or as important as the 150 units of housing. We need housing and that needs to be built. And if there were no bonusing the housing units that would be built under a non-bonusing situation would still be of tremendous value to the community.

So that will be my recommendation or my approach. I think we’re bargaining from maybe a position of weakness here. I see that there is a willingness to meet halfway. I’ll leave it to the committee to make that decision.

Of course, however, I would like to see, I would like to see this built in and build quickly. And so the kinds of things that we can do in terms of an olive branch to make those developments precipitate quickly are our negotiations like this. So I would also say that we really need to think about this strategy for affordable housing. We’re creating affordable places five decades in the future.

And I think we need to look at another way of financing affordable housing. And we may need to look at another way of supporting the people that we have right now. So they did that $2.5 million or so that the applicant said will be their portion in terms of paying just for this 20% is a significant contribution. And we could make it in this way or make it in some other way.

So I would suggest to you that what we’re planning and negotiating for may not in the end be what happens or may not be the best way for us to help the people most in need right now. Thank you, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt Council Van Hose, have you finished? Yes, Madam Chair, I think I’m fine. So I encourage you to make the decision that’s most likely for us to see a development happen and happen quickly.

Thank you, Councilee Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m glad he stuck around for this one. I really, I’ve heard Councilor Lewis’s comments and I’m glad to hear that he’s open to hearing from other Councillors and hearing further discussion on this, I really would urge committee to accept this staff recommendation here and to pass that.

This is exactly where the province intends cities to situate affordable housing because this is where they’ve given us the tool for their protected major transit areas. For those of you who did not attend AMO last week, I was there with Councillor Hopkins, with Councillor Turner, along with the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor and Councillor Haimou. And this is exactly what we spoke to Minister Clark about, about how we are able to build affordable housing in the city of London and the tools that we use. And we told Minister Clark how effective, so far, financing has been for us and that we understand the desire for the Ford government to achieve consistency amongst municipalities, but we pushed for more of an idea of consistency of results, consistency of goals rather than consistency of methods to get there.

So this is our last ability to use this bonus thing, people have mentioned this. So let’s use it. Let’s use it. I agree that we should not be negotiating on the committee floor with applicants.

That’s what we pay our city staff to do, to do these negotiations. And we pay our city staff to come to us with their recommendations based on past practices, how we’ve been doing it all along, based on negotiations with the developer. What I heard from the agent tonight was not that they can’t include 12 affordable units. They said they want to include eight.

And what I’m seeing here, Councillor Turner pointed out that others are watching and other applicants have been coming forward asking for the same treatment that previous applicants have been achieving. That’s not a coincidence. And that’s not them watching. That is a concerted strategy.

And that’s fine. It’s fine for the community of developers to work together on achieving their goals, which is to build quality buildings in our city within parameters that they’ve set for themselves along the lines of profit and all of that. And that’s fine. But it’s my former ward five councillor and former mayor of the city of London, when she used to talk to me about planning issues before I was on city council, she would say her job as a city councillor was not to maximize profits for a private business.

Our job is to create policy and to weigh all of the factors that are before us in making our decisions. I believe what staff have developed as an approach for determining an appropriate level of affordable housing and a new building is reasonable. It is very reasonable. And when you look at this area, not only are there thousands of jobs at LHC, there’s also Parkwood Hospital, not much further south, but there are a lot of retail jobs, a lot of service industry jobs, a lot of moderate to lower income jobs in this area.

There is a need for this kind of affordable housing for workers in lower paying jobs. So that they can live and work in the same area. We’ve already talked so much about this being on the rapid transit line. This is exactly where we want this to be.

And I would point out that this is one of the first, one of the first projects to come forward with an affordable housing structure on a rapid transit line. We’ve been seeing a lot of bonusing and a lot of affordable housing units going throughout the city, but this is one of the first that’s actually right on it, where we want this kind of development, this high intensity, high density development to take place, along with affordable housing. This is a builder that builds. This is not a builder that’s going to buy land and get the rezoning and flip it.

This is a builder that builds in the city of London. We are lucky to have builders like this in the city of London. We have to push them a little bit harder and not necessarily give in to everything that they want. That’s what negotiating is, it’s give and take.

And I believe that we should listen to our staff on this one. It is not unreasonable. Out of over 150 units in this building, 12 to be affordable. Please, I am begging you members of the planning committee to accept the staff recommendation and pass that tonight and make that recommendation to council.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Any other comments that I have not heard from committee members? Councillor Van Halst, are you?

Thank you. Oh, hold on. Just one moment, I didn’t see Councillor Lewis’ hand. Councillor Lewis.

And then I’ll go to you, Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do appreciate the comments from Councillor Cassidy and I do agree that this being on a transit corridor is very important. The fact that it’s going to be in an inclusionary zoning zone in the future influences my thought process as well.

Because that will be one of the new tools, although we’re not entirely sure what it looks like yet, but it will be one of the new tools we have for affordable housing. But I want to come back now to something that both the applicant and Councillor Turner touched on. And Ms. Pissado responded a little bit.

But we did hear about some of the urban design pieces. And this is a consideration that I want to know or hear from Ms. Pissado perhaps a little bit more because this can influence the viability of a project for a developer too. And I did hear or say that there would be consideration for items perhaps simply not being able to be accommodated on the physical site based on the space that’s available.

I’m just wondering if she could, and I realize I may be asking her to opinion a little bit or give a best guess in a couple of cases. But in terms of some of these things, and for example, we heard the functional forecourt leading to the main entrance was something that the applicant raised as not being feasible on the site as they envision it. What kind of considerations, because if this is part of the bonusing zone, if it’s not feasible, then it’s not something that’s actually been delivered through the bonusing. So how when this is being evaluated, does that piece of the trade off work?

Through you, Madam Chair, I think to Councillor Lewis, I think when it comes to certain things like the ability to incorporate a forecourt, the ability to have a step back at a fifth level, those sorts of things, that’s very much tied to what their current design shows. And as I’ve mentioned previously, the renderings, the concepts, et cetera, have not been adopted for this site. Essentially, what we’re looking for is a, go back and try to incorporate all those things that we’re looking for from my criteria perspective into the site. And truly, if the site cannot accommodate the forecourt, if it cannot accommodate that fifth story, I think we need to understand or it needs to be demonstrated that in fact, that can’t be done.

Tying ourselves to this particular concept is, it’s not possible because it’s not adopted. And that’s why we’ve gone forward with that criteria instead of tying to a particular development concept that ultimately can’t meet those things then. So I think that’s kind of the important thing about this. And I can’t say what ultimately will happen through site plan, because obviously urban design will also be involved.

So it’s gonna be a process, basically. But I think it’s important to understand that there is no actual concept that has been approved for the site. It’s really the criteria that will be approved for whatever the next stage ends up developing or designing. Councillor Lewis.

Yes, so I guess what I’m asking, and I’m just gonna use a, for example, and hopefully this helps. So if, for example, in the design standards criteria, the functional four-court can’t be provided, as this application develops through site plan, would staff then be looking for additional considerations for the fact that that cannot be provided for? Or would they, at that point, simply acknowledge that, okay, this, with the design that’s coming forward with the detailed drawings and the site layout, we recognize that that is not practical, and so we’re just going to drop it, or would there be, would staff be then looking for other trade-offs along the way? For example, it talks about transit-oriented amenities such as benches and bike racks.

Would staff then say, well, then you have to include more bike racks since you can’t provide a functional four-court? Would that be a back-and-forth that happens, or is it simply a, we recognize that it does not fit on the site as proposed, and we understand that it’s just not attainable? Pretty madam chair, I think the intent of what those design criteria are, is really what we’re looking for in terms of those criteria being met. So, although the four-court may not be able to be provided, for instance, is there a reasonable alternative that could be incorporated into the site that still achieves that sort of, you know, ability to drop off pickup, that sort of thing?

Is there something that can be provided with respect to landscaping, et cetera, to meet those sorts of goals or objectives that we’re looking for overall in the design criteria? I think that’s, so meeting the intent, I think, is more so what we’ll be looking for. So, is there some sort of reasonable alternative then that we can also incorporate? Thank you, that is helpful, and I do appreciate you being able to respond in that way.

Mr. Barrett, can you add? Thank you, through Madam Chair, and also just to assage the council’s concerns on the other side, staff who would be working from those same sort of criteria that would be attached as part of the bonus. So, it certainly wouldn’t be within staff’s ability to come up with another element.

The elements are clearly articulated, and I think as Ms. Bassato said, what we’d be looking for is what is the intent of, in this instance, what is the intent of the four-court, and how can that be achieved? And that’s what the evaluation would be on that. It wouldn’t be, well, if you can’t do it there, then we want more of this.

That wouldn’t be the approach that would be taken. It would be looking at those elements and how those elements were able to be achieved, and if not, were they achieving the intent through an alternative means? And that could mean something else, like addressing perhaps one of the landscape conditions, whereby the landscape may be enhanced in a way such that it could provide for that same thing. So that’s how that would work.

It wouldn’t be that staff would turn around and say, well, we’d like to see something else somewhere else. We would be found by those same conditions that are laid out as to what those features are that we’d be looking to address through the bonus. Councillor Lewis. No, that’s great.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett for expanding on that just a little bit. Thank you.

I do not see any of the comments. I have not, oh, sorry, Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, Madam Chair. And since this is one of the, one of the first times we’re seeing the reduced parking, I wanted to get staff’s comments on that.

I see that in this instance, it looks like we’ll have fewer parking spaces, then there are units. And although I can see how there might be people in this area that certainly wouldn’t need or prefer not to have a car, I wouldn’t mind that being addressed too. Your question, I’ll wrap up the reduced parking. Yeah, so ask, ask about the reduced parking and how that reduction was related to the, the bonusing and the, and the affordable units.

Speciality. Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Van Halst. The reduction of parking was considered based on recent events that have also unfolded with respect to the city and calculating parking overall. We had the most recent parking study that was, I believe, brought to planning committee, the last planning committee, I believe.

So those sorts of considerations were also considered when we were looking to reduce the parking overall. Obviously, its location on a rapid transit corridor was really tantamount with respect to being able to feel comfortable with the reduction in the amount of parking that is necessary for the site. But in terms of its consideration and bonusing, generally, parking is not a consideration when it comes to bonusing provisions. There are some very clear parameters with respect to that and that was not one of them that was considered.

Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, that was helpful. Okay, and with that, I hope the committee will allow me just to make some comments here. And I wanna thank the committee for the conversation and really happy to know that some of my colleagues are listening here.

I am not gonna have any shame I am gonna beg that this committee support this recommendation. This is the last day that we’re able to take advantage of the bonusing for affordable housing. When we came in as a council, a number of years ago, one of the things that I thought this council stood together on was affordable housing. We all agreed the importance of affordable housing.

And I’m not sure where things shifted or where things went sideways that we now became a council that we would be about negotiating on behalf of the developer. And I have- Point of order, Madam Chair, you are alleging that members of council are negotiating on behalf of the developer, raising questions on a communication that we all received and that is frankly out of order. You are making accusations that you cannot back up and I respectfully request you withdraw that. I won’t withdraw that.

That is how I see this conversation. Well, then you cannot make those comments from the chair. You’re gonna have to see the chair and allow the chair to make that judgment as to whether your comments are in order or not. Okay, I will see the chair.

Okay, I’ve got the chair or council to us. As I indicated, Mr. Presiding Officer, I’m raising a point of personal privilege here. The comments from the member are making accusations that are based on opinion, raised on documents that are publicly available.

No member of council is suggesting we should not get affordable housing out of this application. And that’s exactly what she just alluded to, saying that we’ve lost our way and we’re now negotiating on behalf of the developer. Nobody’s negotiating on behalf of the developer. The members of council are weighing the pros and cons of the recommendation that has come before us.

Councillor Hopkins, would you withdraw that comment? I will not withdraw the comment and if I can explain why I made that comment, okay? I have to make a ruling and I’m gonna make a ruling that that comment was off-side. But for reasons that council has said and I will turn the chair back to Councillor Hopkins.

Okay, I’ll start again if I may. So we came in as a council, a vision, every one of us supported affordable housing. I’m not sure where things went, but we have started, we have started to make decisions here at committee. What we hear from the development community on affordable housing.

I’m not sure when that started, we are here on our last day where we can take advantage of the balancing and I am gonna beg this committee to support the recommendation that is going that is presented in front of us. One of the big reasons that affordable housing is important, the bonusing part, was that we’ve done good work in that area. And I’m gonna touch upon, if I may, the delegation that we had with Minister Steve Clark, Councillor Turner touched upon it, Councillor Cassidy did. And I’d just like to speak to that as well.

We spoke to the minister, the work that the city has done, taking an advantage of the bonusing that was available to us. We also asked, and maybe begged a little bit, that we need other opportunities, other tools, since the bonusing is being taken away from us. Obviously the inclusionary zoning, this is in a transit area, but we do need other opportunities, we do need affordable housing units, and we need to take advantage of everything that is available. I am supporting this recommendation, because it does do that.

I won’t go into all the other reasons that Councillor Turner spoke about, why this is a good development. But I do not feel at all that we have to negotiate here with the developer. Staff have done their work, and I am supportive of their recommendation. Thank you.

I’ll turn the chair back to Councillor Hopkins. So I’m looking for a motion here. Madam Chair, there is a motion on the floor. Oh, there is, and okay.

And we’ve got a seconder, and Councillor Layman. Thank you. I think we’ve all been for development and for affordable housing, all the way through. It’s only been up until the last cycle, actually, as we’ve been coming close to our deadline.

And the concern was not, was quite the opposite. It wasn’t to negotiate in half of the developer. It was a negotiating, because we were forced to, because the staff put it on our labs to do that. So staff coming to us with a recommendation, or a recommendation not to go ahead.

I think the fear was, we had different opinions in that if we did not do some things here, we would lose a development, and all the affordable housing with it, because we’re up against the deadline. So I just want to make that clear. There was no change of motivation that has been for the last four years. I mean, we all recognize affordable ability of housing, and we want to see in fill, and we’ve been very successful at it.

So, you know, there has not been a shift in the last, well, I don’t know when, there has been a change in the last cycle. That’s just it, because we’re up against this limit of where we’re gonna lose boasting. And it was just a different opinion of how to get as much affordable housing, no stuff built that has created a bit of a divide here. That’s all.

So I just want to make that clear. Any other comments? We can proceed to Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to our staff, perhaps they could remind me of when we started providing affordable housing in London in terms of this 20% off market rates, ‘cause I don’t believe it went back all the way to the 1989 plan.

But so, perhaps somebody could tell me when that, when we began that practice. Aspisado? Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Van Holst, I’m not actually sure the timing, unfortunately, I’d have to rely on either Mr. Barrett or someone to assist with that.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The consideration of affordable housing as a bonusable item has been a consideration of Council since bonusing was provided for in the 1989 plan.

But, and to the Councillor’s point, the number of affordable housing units that were achieved in those years was not a large number because, in fact, other factors were required. And in many instances, the bonusing was being used for other items that were considered a benefit, a public benefit, for example, some of the early applications in the downtown included elements of public art, which was consistent with the council desire at the time. As it relates to affordable housing, there has been a move since probably about 2016, 2017, where the consideration of affordable housing has been one that’s come forward much more often in applications for consideration and bonusing. But it was with Council’s adoption of the roadmap to 3000, where, in fact, Council signaled very strongly to the development community that affordable housing was where Council’s mind was with respect to a focus that Council wanted to see achieved through its term.

And in some of the reports were brought forward, talking about how we might help to advance that strategy, it did speak to affordable housing being one, sorry, bonusing being one of those tools that could be used. It was actually the development community that responded to this. It was not staff, it was the development community that actually responded to that call that went out from Council. And I believe the development community saw very much that in fact, in order for them to advance applications that were considering bonusing, if an element of affordable housing was included, and that moved more and more to, if affordable housing as the element was included, the Council was much more predisposed and staff were much more predisposed to bring forward those applications and that they were meeting with quite honestly, pretty close to unanimous Council support when those were coming forward because they did include that housing, affordable housing element as the bonusable element.

With respect to how we’ve developed the formulas, that has evolved over time as well. And it has always included consideration of a percentage of the average market rent as opposed to the total average market rent. And it has always included some consideration of a time period. And it has always included some consideration of a proportion or a percentage of the increased number of units that were achieved through bonusing.

So those elements have been part of an affordable housing agreement that’s been brought forward to you. I would suggest at least over the last three to four years. But again, consistent with the roadmap and consistent with the desire to see some of these applications go forward, more and more of these applications were focusing just on affordable housing. And we were actually staff were asked and working with the HDC as our partners asked, could we come up with some kind of formula that could help applicants in this?

And so over time we have evolved to the 10% of the lift, 80% of AMR, 50-year term tenant placement agreement with the city and a mix that’s proportional to the mix of units within the building. And that’s been the standard where the variation has occurred has been in tweaks to how that would work. For example, in some instances council took fewer units but was in exchange for units being provided now in existing developments that were proximate to the site that was under consideration. And in other instance, council took fewer units because the types of units that were being provided were more reflective of what council saw as a desire for the unit mix at the time.

So it was council’s decision that did that but it was always within the context of how that overall public benefit would work. And so it has probably been for about the past two years or more where we’ve been pretty solid on what has been the basis of a recommendation that we have brought forward to you. Council Van Host. Thank you.

That’s a wonderful answer and quite helpful. Thank you for asking that. Okay, we have a motion. We can proceed.

Oh, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up where Councilor Van Host left off there and through you to our staff. Mr.

Barrett touched on a couple of the considerations. But over the course of our term, I just want to make sure that he can verify that we’ve had agreements that have been at 90% of AMR, 85%, 80%. We’ve actually had, I think, one at 70%. We’ve had durations from 25 years to 30, 35, 50 years over the course of this term.

So it hasn’t been a uniform set policy for the last four years but has in fact been something that’s been evolving over time, correct, Mr. Barrett? To the Chair, that’s what I indicated was that it was but it was definitely, it was within that context. And so it was, if I’m a toggling of some of those, yes, we accepted shorter periods of affordability but it was in exchange for in some instances more units or in some instances units now rather than units later.

So there was a consideration as to how that worked but yes, as a starting point, we’ve been consistent but certainly individual applications that have come before you have somewhat tweaked that formula but it’s always been within that context. And as I said, the three elements that have always been consistent was that it was always a proportion of the AMR. It was always a percentage of the lift and it was always for a prescribed period of time. It is over time that those have evolved to the conditions that we’ve been speaking with tonight.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. So I’m just gonna offer a closing remark here.

Councillor Cassidy made some excellent comments and had swayed me and I asked some follow-up questions of Ms. Pasado on the design standards. The answers I got from that swayed me. So I am going to support the application, not through any negotiation but because I’ve had my answers satisfied by staff and because Councillor Cassidy swayed me with her point that this is a developer with a track record of building here in the city.

And I believe that Westdale and Mr. Madawi and his team will work with our staff on the design standards that they will perhaps find ways to make some of them work and some of them may not work. But I do know that this is a builder who I believe will build this project, whatever that final form looks like. So I’m prepared to support this application tonight.

There are any other comments before we vote? Because we can go to motion, we can proceed to vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. And to our next scheduled item which is 3.9, a public participation meeting for 1737 Richmond Street, looking to committee to open it up.

Councillor Hill here is seconded by. Councillor Layman and we can proceed to vote and we do have a to Ms. Pasado again. Thank you, Madam Chair, good evening.

The presentation for this application can be found starting on page 449 of the added agenda. This is a zoning bylaw amendment application pertaining to 1737 Richmond Street. The subject site is a land occupied by the Richmond Highland Commercial Center. The larger commercial plaza consists of several standalone commercial and office buildings along the Richmond and Fanshawe frontage, all ranging in heights from one to three stories.

The site is generally rectangular in shape and currently contains a restaurant and a furniture store. The site is surrounded by commercial and offices to the north, south and east and a seniors home and apartment to the west. The requested amendments are to facilitate the development of a 22-story mixed commercial residential apartment building with 276 residential units and 2,110 square meters of commercial as shown on slide three, page 451. The applicant is also seeking a bonus zone to implement the proposed development with special provisions including permitting all of the commercial and office uses on the first and second floor, a maximum height of 80 meters or 22 stories, a maximum density of 571 units per hectare and a reduced minimum parking of 320 spaces.

The implementation of the bonus zone is in exchange for facilities and services which include the building design and affordable housing. Staff are also recommending a base business district commercial zone to allow a 15-story mixed use apartment building at a maximum density of 150 units per hectare should development not proceed by way of bonus zone. In addition, commercial parking lots, accessory parking and drive-throughs are prohibited within the applied zones. Slide four, page 452, shows the proposed elevation.

The building is oriented to address Fanshawe Park Road and will be accessed by driveway off of both Fanshawe and North Center Road. A total of 320 parking spaces are proposed for the site within the building, within two underground levels and four above ground levels. The overall building is comprised of a base podium level of six to eight stories, tapering up to 22-story tower, located to the front of the site, adjacent to Fanshawe Park Road. Slide five, page 453, the subject lands are located within the transit village place type on a main street.

Mixed use buildings are encouraged as well as the provision of active commercial and retail uses on the ground floor at grade. The transit village place type contemplates a well-designed high density mixed use urban neighborhood. Heights within this place type range up to 22 stories. The Mesaville Secondary Plan, although under appeal, is still used for application consideration.

The development is located within a mixed use area and permitted uses include a broad range of retail, commercial, service and residential. Policies within the London Plan and the Mesaville Secondary Plan support the requested amendments. Slide six, bonusing on page 454. The applicant requested the use of bonus provisions to allow the increase in density and height.

For affordable housing, the calculation of the lift was based on the base density of 150 units per hectare as per the 89 plan, which would equate to 78 units on the site. The increase in density above the base permission is an additional 219 units. A rate of 10% of the total increase in units equates to 22 units, which is the lift and the consistent approach to calculating the total number of affordable housing units. The 22 units are to be representative mix overall, distributed evenly throughout the development and based on an 80% of the average market rent for duration of 50 years.

For building design, the submitted drawings, site concepts and renderings will be attached to schedule one to the zoning by-law in order to facilitate the development as proposed. Staff are also recommending additional design considerations within the bonus zone to further refine the design and ensure any developments, meet the design policies of the London plan and the council-approved Masonville secondary plan. Slide seven, neighborhood concerns on page 455. Staff also received comments from the public with respect to this application and concerns have been raised with respect to traffic, parking, privacy, blocked views, shadow, wind and noise impacts and precedent.

A community information meeting was held by the applicant in July, which provided an opportunity for residents to further relay their questions and concerns. Staff are recommending a business to commercial special provision bonus zone to facilitate the development of the subject lands with a 22-story mixed-use commercial, office and residential apartment building with 2,110 square meters of commercial and office uses limited to the first and second floor, 276 residential units and up to 320 parking spaces. The bonus zone will establish a maximum density of 571 units per hectare. The proposed development and recommended amendments are consistent with the provincial policy statement and conform to the London plan, as well as the council-approved Masonville secondary plan.

The recommended amendment is also in conformity with the 1989 official plan, including the policies related to bonus zoning. The recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within a built area boundary and a primary transit area with an appropriate form of infill development. I’m available for any questions. Thank you, any technical questions from committee?

Seeing none, I will go to the applicant or the agent. Good evening, Madam Chair. This is Simone Arrasenu. First of all, can you hear me?

Yes, I can and you have up to five minutes. Thank you. Good evening planning and environment committee chair and members, as I mentioned. My name is Simone Arrasenu.

I’m a planner with Strick Baldonelli Mona’s LTD and the agent for Westdale Development Corp who is the applicant for this project. Although planning staff are generally supportive of the application and we appreciate the support, they also want changes to our proposal that we don’t agree with. Our concerns with the Zoning By-law Amendment or ZBA proposed by city staff are outlined in more detail in the memo included in tonight’s agenda package. I want to take this opportunity to summarize a few key points.

The city ZBA outlines requested changes to the site building and design. The general purpose of then amending Zoning By-law is to clearly outline specific requirements for a development where compliance can be demonstrated. Some of the requested staff changes have no objective or quantitative way of ensuring compliance. So for example, one of the staff requests is to further articulate the podium facades.

There is no objective and fair way of ensuring this has been achieved and leaves too much to the discretion of city staff. We have made substantial design changes to the initial project submission in response to staff comments and believe that any further design changes can be addressed at the site plan stage. The other area of concern is staff’s affordable housing recommendation. City staff are recommending a total of 22 affordable housing units using the 1989 official plan as a policy framework.

We are proposing 10 affordable housing units and increase of three units over the initial proposal of seven units using the London Plan as a policy framework. While the London Plan was still under appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal when we submitted our application, the preliminary consultations with staff all focused on the bonus zone provisions as outlined in the London Plan, not the 1989 official plan. So for example, the record of consultation provided by city staff dated July 13, 2021, referred to the type two bonus zone identified in the London Plan. To summarize, although we believe that the London Plan should be the applicable policy framework, we also believe that the proposed 10 affordable housing units would conform to the bonus zoning provisions of the 1989 official plan and specifically policy 1944, which states that, and I’m quoting here, the facilities, services or matters that will be provided in consideration of a height or density bonus should be reasonable in terms of their cost benefit implications for both the city and the developer and must result in a benefit to the general public end quote.

In other words, cost benefit implications for both the city and the developer should be considered according to this policy. As you know, a bonus provisions will be phased out as of September 18, 2022 in accordance with provincial regulations. Westdale is committed to providing 10 affordable rental units and would now want the city to risk not receiving these units. The city’s LBA also lets certain prohibited uses, certain prohibited uses, including commercial parking structures and accessory parking lots.

The parking associated with our proposal is intended to be accessory and to support the principal commercial and residential uses. We are not proposing standalone parking lots or structures. Our concern with the proposed outright prohibition of commercial parking structures and accessory parking lots is that it may prohibit charging customers and residents modest parking fees to offset operating costs. In closing, we respectfully request that planning and environment committee members approve a revised version of the zoning by-law that removes the design changes and prohibited uses of commercial parking structures and accessory parking lots and replaces the number of affordable units with 10 units.

Westdale is committed to the revitalization of the Highlands Shopping Center and the proposed development would continue the redevelopment that has already started with the construction of the National Bank, Starbucks, and Westdale office buildings. The proposed development has been three years in the making. If approved, it would provide a development charge contribution of approximately $5.9 million to the city of London. It would also be the most significant initiative in implementing council’s vision for the transit village place type in North London, only 300 meters from a proposed rapid transit station, the northwest corner of one of the most prominent intersections in the city, Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park Road West.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to the public now. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make a comment, please come forward.

I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone from the public that would like to make a comment, please come forward. I see none and with that, I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

We can proceed to vote. Present the vote. The motion carries five to zero. No comments.

Councillor Turner. I’m sure. I think this is a pretty carbon copy, actually of what we just went through. So hopefully our debate can be a little bit shorter and a little bit more amicable.

But for all the same reasons, I’m going to move to the staff recommendation. I hope that I’ll have a seconder. I do have a couple of questions along the way though. I’m happy to second the motion to get the conversation going.

Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair. So as mentioned by the applicant and by Ms. Bassado, this is a marquee position within the city.

It’s a part of the Masonville Secondary Plan, even though that’s not in full effect, but our transit village place types certainly aren’t within the official plan. The same discussion around Fort Flousin comes in. I’d say all the same arguments are there. This is an established developer with significant investment at a very significant intersection.

The prospect of this not moving forward is very, very low. And I think this adheres to all the policies that we have in place. It’s also in the primary major transit corridor. It fills all the policies that we have within all our planning.

And it has that opportunity later. Should this not move forward now, that it might be subject to those inclusionary zoning policies that should counsel adopt them in the future? I’m interested a little bit to know about the other prohibited uses clause. That’s a bit of a different argument.

This has come up with a couple of the medical classes, but I haven’t really seen this in a residential building circumstance for commercialization or monetization of parking spaces that might come up. Can you explain, I guess, through you, Madam Chair, to staff, to Ms. Pasado, just explore that a little bit, I’d imagine. But also when we take a look at downtown development, some of the buildings that have incorporated parking are able to monetize those parking spots.

What’s the difference here? Through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor Turner, my understanding is that a lot of those monetized parking that’s available downtown, they either have that provision to allow for that component, or they also might monetize through like a condominium type situation where you can essentially charge for a parking space, whether that be an actual condo unit or that sort of thing, in which case then there’s that consideration. The thinking behind the prohibition on this site specifically is firstly being its location near Masonville and the type of bus rapid transit that we’d be looking at here, we don’t want to see a situation where the developer does not develop for the uses that have been applied through the bonus zone, but rather potentially builds a pay parking or something to that effect. We want to ensure that obviously this site moves forward and develops for that mixed use type of development, and we want to dissuade basically that single use parking structure that potentially could locate here, which is not something we would want to see, and certainly not something that is met by the London Plan policies or the Masonville Secondary Plan.

So that’s generally the thinking behind that. In terms of, I think the question was, some of those medical dental office buildings around town, I actually, I know site plan is also at the meeting. I’m wondering if they potentially could comment on something like that. I’m not sure how those actually get implemented, so potentially there is something that gets done.

Mr. Peace. Thank you and through the chair. The couple of instances that I can think of mainly actually the primary one on Fanshawe, that has a special provision that does allow for basically effectively a commercial parking lot.

So the view is that the residential use here requires a certain number of parking spaces and they should not be commercial for gain or hire. In our opinion, so that’s the distinction. So the medical dentals do have a, the ones that exist do have a special provision that is permitted by zoning. So that’s the distinction here.

I hope that assists with the question. Through you Madam Chair to you both, thank you very much. I think the other consideration in here is that, should that be commercialized? You might squeeze the balloon out to neighboring properties and there’s a lot of neighboring surface property parking there and just creates, just displaces their clients onto somebody else’s property that hasn’t built to accommodate somebody else’s overflow.

So I think those are important considerations. I think the staff recommendations will be recent here. I hope my colleagues will apply the same logic from the last application to this one and those are my comments, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Turner.

Not sure if committee members would mind if I go to Councillor Cassidy, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Wow, I’m talking a lot tonight. This is not in Ward five, but it is right across the street.

So Richmond Street is the dividing line between my ward and Deputy Mayor Morgan’s Ward seven. So there’s a lot of interest from people in Ward five because that seems really, really intense and really big to them. And so when the notice first went out, I did get a lot of emails and phone calls. So when people asked me like, why would city even consider something this big?

This is so intense and look at already all the problems we have in the area. And my response to many of them who had already been involved in different planning applications that were in fill and intensification, I said to them, this is the exact spot. When neighborhoods come to the planning committee and they say, don’t build this so high, don’t build this so intense, it’s right in my neighborhood. This is where we want this kind of intensification.

So it was a good learning experience for people that had been through planning applications closer to home to see this very busy commercial node and high density area. This is where we want this kind of concentration. And to Councillor Turner’s point, yes, everything that we just talked about applies here for sure. But one thing I will point out to the committee, even though this isn’t right now a rapid transit line that has been approved to go forward at this point in time.

Outside of the downtown, I will educate you on the Ward 5 and Masonville area. Outside of the downtown, the Masonville area has the highest concentration of jobs and the highest use of transit in the city. So this is exactly where we want to see this kind of intensification. And again, because there are a lot of those lower paying service-oriented jobs, this is where we need affordable housing.

We don’t want to have people traveling on two buses and transferring multiple times to get to their job if we can provide affordable units right in the area so they can live and work and stay in the area, do all of their own shopping and stuff like that, using the amenities in the area, then that ticks off so many boxes that we want to tick. So again, really hopeful that the planning committee will support this one. It is a great looking building, a beautiful design. It will add a lot to the area.

And I’m hopeful that we can move forward with the staff recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other comments from committee?

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Councillor Cassidy. I actually thought this was in Ward 5.

So, but it is on the wrong side of the road, but I’m glad that somebody from the neighborhood area came to speak to it. My concern with this application is part of the concern I had with the last application too. And it’s part of a concern I’ve had with a number of applications in the last few cycles. And so I’m looking for some staff, I guess, comment because we continue to see applications coming forward where we’re getting a staff recommendation with built feature requirements that the applicant themselves are saying they can’t do or they are saying this is not the proposal we’ve brought forward.

So I’m looking for some comment on why these differences are not being worked out before they come to us. Or if they can’t be worked out, why we are not getting a recommendation to refuse rather than a impose these conditions. And then we come to Planning Committee and the applicant is saying to us, these are problems for us in terms of our being able to go ahead and build. I do appreciate when staff comes to us and says, you know, not withstanding our recommendation to refuse, we do recommend if council goes forward that this and this and this be done to mitigate.

But that’s not what we’re getting now. We’re getting a recommendation to approve, but with conditions that the applicant themselves are saying our problems for them. And while the back and forth on affordable housing is one component of that, I’m much more concerned about why these built feature issues seem to be coming up more frequently that we’re hearing about them either through the added agenda the weekend before or on the committee floor. So I’m wondering if I can get maybe just a bit of comment on why this is happening from our staff.

Through you Madam Chair to Councillor Lewis. For these two, the 712 baseline as well as 1737 Richmond. Very much so this application is being brought forward because of the sunset regards to bonus thing. So we really only have this opportunity at this time to bring forward a recommendation.

And for the most part, these applications are, as have been mentioned by, you know, as noted by the various Councillors as well, they’re in areas where we want to see this type of intensification. They’re in areas we want to see this type of development. But the pieces with respect to urban design, for instance, they cannot be resolved before, basically. Normally, I think that in due course, we would work with the applicant to ensure that, you know, the final zoning reflects what we are looking for from a staff and from a city perspective with respect to urban design.

But we don’t have the luxury of time for these two applications in particular. So we have to bring a report forward and we have to bring a recommendation forward. And that includes those last few pieces that staff feel should be incorporated into the overall design for the site. For instance, one of the key pieces that, from an urban design perspective, is the tower floor plate, which we are looking to be limited to 1,000 square meters.

That is a direct result of the Masonville secondary plan, which requires that 1,000 square meters. That is a comment that has been made consistently throughout this process, including all the way through pre-consultation, but has never been reflected in the ultimate design. And that’s something, therefore, that we as staff have recommended being incorporated then into the bonus sum. Like I said, we’re, especially with this one, we’re almost there.

There’s just a few small pieces that I think need to be incorporated and we’re incorporated into the ultimate recommendation. That’s clear, Louis. Okay, I do appreciate that. And again, I’m coming back to this hang up on and Ms.

Posado referenced. We’re, you know, in some of these, we’re not that far apart. And we’ve seen that a couple of times now. You know, there’s one under items for direction where we’re talking about 22 feet.

I think if memory serves the communication we got on this one, and I’m sorry, I had it open earlier and I closed it and I should have written down the note, but I think this one was indicated as 44 feet. A difference in width. And so I appreciate that we’re under a time constraint here. It seems, it’s frustrating to me that we’re getting hung up over 22 feet or 44 feet on something that’s gonna be 22 stories or 25 stories or whatever the individual application happens to be.

In this case, it’s 22 because if, and it just feels like perhaps had we had more time, these might have gotten ironed out through the design process. But I do appreciate Ms. Posado clarifying that it’s the 11th hour and the 59th minute and we’re trying to get something forward for some consideration. So thank you for providing some commentary on that.

Any other comments from committee members? I see none, Councillor Van Holst. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry, I missed the introduction, I had to step away.

But I would like perhaps staff to describe now that we’re here at the last moment. What would happen if we didn’t come to an agreement and then we had to move to the London plan exclusively without balancing what kind of a change would we end up seeing in this design? Ms. Posado, through Madam Chair, I think what Councillor Van Holst is asking is in terms of design specifically, what would we see if there was no agreement, I guess you could say?

Ultimately, it would revert back to whatever the London plan policies for design are or the Mesaville secondary plan, which is also council approved. We would use those going forward for any development on these sites. Regardless of of bonusing, that would be something we’d be trying to achieve as well. But specifically because in this particular case, the applicant is seeking bonusing based on affordable, sorry, urban design, that is why these particular developments have been incorporated.

Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Madam Chair, and just to add to that, from a design perspective, quite honestly, you wouldn’t see any difference between the consideration now or the consideration later. As Ms.

Posado said, the difference here is that it’s been articulated within a bonus zone. But the actual policies, for example, as Councillor Lewis asked the question of the 1,000 square meters where that had come from, and that’s a direct reference back to the Mesaville secondary plan. So that consideration would still be there. What’s different here is that we’ve articulated those considerations as part of the bonus zone because that’s the way this application was brought forward.

But with respect to what we would be looking for in the design and the comments that would be made, there would be a consistent with the comments that have been provided here at this evening. Councillor. Yes, Madam Chair, I guess, and thank you for the answer. And that was also helpful.

I wish I hadn’t used the word design, but in terms of the number of units in the height, what would the change be there then? Three, Madam Chair, there would still be, the policy framework is in place for 22 stories here based on the London Plan considerations. However, there is a whole other set of considerations to get to that 22 stories. So that would be part of the analysis that we would look at is whether 22 stories is appropriate given the criteria within the London Plan as well.

Same sorts of considerations just without the bonuses. Thank you. Thank you. And I don’t see any other comments.

I would like to make a comment to this recommendation. I am supportive of this going forward. I know Councillor Lewis mentioned about Council Cassidy and the confusion I had as well, because I think a lot of that had to do with the Masonville Secondary Plan that Deputy Mayor Morgan and the Council were quite involved in and just not sure where the boundary was there. But I am supportive of does the reduction in parking and obviously the transit village, but the importance of the Masonville Secondary Plan having the objective of 25% affordable housing and this can support that objective.

So those are my comments and with that, I see no further comments. We’ll proceed to vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And moving on to 3.10, which is of the less public participation meeting for 2141 Meadow, Lily Road North and 20 New Orleans Avenue opening up the public participation meeting.

Looking for a mover, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Lewis. Councillor Hillier, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. We have a presentation here, Mr.

Parker. You’re still with us? Yes, I am, Madam Chair. Welcome.

  • I’ll be brief. I’ll run through the application. The just for your information, the presentation is in your added agenda. The application is a 21 to 41 Meadow, Lily Road and 20 New Orleans Ave.

The location is just east of Highbury Avenue and south of Hamilton Road. If you know the area, it’s at the bottom of the hill right next to the south branch of the Thames River. The subject site is currently occupied by two single detached dwellings and the rearlands are mostly vacant. There are low density residential uses across the street.

There’s a low density residential subdivision to the north. There is an infill townhouse project, just a little bit to the north as well. There’s a hydro corridor that separates these lands from the single family subdivision to the north. And on the south side of Norlon Ave is a basically open space area plus there’s the urban roots urban farm as well on the south side of the street.

The existing 1989 official plan designation was low density residential. The London plan place type is neighborhoods and the site is currently zoned R16, which allows the single detached dwellings. As part of the application, the applicant requested a special policy in both official plans to permit back-to-back townhouses at a height of three stories in the density of 91 units per hectare. Subsequently, the London plan was changed to allow the three-story height and as well, the 1989 official plan is no longer in force.

However, as with the previous applications, we are using the bonus policies in the ‘89 plan for this application to allow for affordable dwelling units. The requested zoning is a special zone, permits stacked townhouses at a density of 91 units per hectare and 91 parking spaces. So as I said, the bonus is for affordable housing, four units, three one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom unit. And we are bonusing for common outdoor amenity space.

They are providing more than what the city normally requires. The concept you can see on the third page of the presentation, it’s three stories high and there’s four of those types of buildings on the property. This is just an example of one of the buildings and what it looks like. Our post site plan is on the next slide.

You can see the four buildings, as I mentioned, the one access is on Mellow-Loolie Road and it’s surrounded by some amenity spaces at the Fringe and some landscape areas. In terms of public comments, we didn’t get any comments on the height, the form or actually the look of the development. Most of it focused on infrastructure. A lot of the residents said that there was, permit this sort of size of development.

You need water, sanitary, storm sewers and that is part of the consideration of this application. Some of the neighbors felt that this was a quiet area, quiet recreation area and they didn’t wanna see it disturbed by development, they thought there should be a need for a second access to this development. They felt that access to Hamilton Road would be more difficult given the addition of 80 stacked town units on the property. They felt because Fairmont School was closing that sidewalks would be needed for school kids, at least for buses coming to the area to pick up kids that some sort of sidewalks would be needed in the area.

There currently are none. And also they indicated that there’s a lot of on-street parking at the moment because a lot of people park on the roads in this area and walk over into the middle of the natural area. So that was another concern they had. In terms of department agency comments, as I said, servicing is a big issue.

And until those services are available, our engineers department felt that a holding provision for water, sanitary and storm sewers plus access was required. Just to make a note of it, there is an EA currently ongoing for the middle of the area. I believe next year the DEA is supposed to be completed. So I’ll have a better idea at that point in time whether the services can be made available or not.

So as I said, sanitary, sanitary, storm, water and road improvements are needed as well as sidewalks. Staff are recommending this application to add a special policy to the London plan to allow stack townhouses on a neighborhood street in a neighborhood’s place type right now. Only townhouses are allowed on a neighborhood street within a neighborhood’s place type. We feel the site is big enough and has enough locational advantages to make it unique and that stack townhouses are appropriate in this particular property.

We are recommending a holding residential R5 special provision zone. The holding, as I said, is for services. No development should occur until services are available and can accommodate the extra 80 units that are coming into this area. We’re recommending the bonus zone and return for an increase in density from 60 to 91 units per hectare and a reduction in parking.

The applicant is providing four affordable housing units as I said, three one bedrooms and one two bedroom and they’re increasing the amount of common open space on the development by 11%. Staff feel that this is a good example of residential intensification on a large enough site in an existing built up area and within the primary transit area. Thank you very much. Any questions, I can answer them.

Thank you. So we’ll go to committee for technical. I know Councillor Hillier’s got his hand up. We’ll go to you first and then to Councillor Lewis and we’re on technical.

Yes, thank you. Regards to the property, it’s on Nordland Avenue and I’m looking across the road at the undeveloped parcels. I know that right now is a community garden. What is the possible zoning for that in the future?

And also, I’m trying to figure out how much the infrastructure is going to cost to service this 90 plus units on the other side of the hydro quarter down there. Is there any answer? To the chair, the answer to your first question is if the urban farm by urban roots was actually purchased by them and they’re running an urban farm from that property. They have, actually I did that amendment and they actually are planning to stay there.

They don’t plan to develop as far as I know. They are planning to run an urban farm on that property. The remainder of the property, I believe is part of the open space area along the south branch of the Thames River. I don’t think it’s under private ownership.

I think urban roots is the only one on the south side. It actually owns property along that river bank. Okay, thank you for that. And regarding the infrastructure, how much upgrade is required for this development?

To the chair, that might be a better question asked of our engineering department. I know that there’s a water looping system required and sanitaries and storm and so on and so forth. I know sidewalks will be required, probably some road improvements since you’re bringing additional 80 units into the area. In all likelihood, road improvements are gonna be required.

But I’ll leave it to our engineers to identify what kind of upgrades it required. Through you, Madam Chair, to the Councillor. So the EA is actually examining what we’re going to need for Santa to various servicing. There’s a couple of developments on the other side of the river that would also be included in that.

So likely what we do is consider that as part of the master plan for the next DC bylaw. So I don’t have a really good answer on dollars and cents at this point, but it’s in the hopper. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, you’re really specific into the staff recommendations and in particular in section two, C, and this is the sub-bullet one, rearrange the parking aisles and buildings to provide one adequately sized common amenity area. I’m familiar with site, not only do I go to urban routes for some fresh produce, but having seen this application coming, I went and visited it on Saturday. The drawings that we have indicate two divided amenity spaces and the applicant has indicated one of those is going to be a playground area for the children who may live in the complex and the other would be a more passive green amenity space.

So noting that rearranging the parking aisles, like they’re providing more open space than is required or amenity space than is required. So why is the recommendation to rearrange it into one amenity area? And I’ll just say my thought is actually having two different areas for a community of this number of townhouses. Makes sense.

People may not want to be participating in the same activities at the same time. There if I can go to Mr. Parker. Yes, through the chair.

This was one of the original comments that was raised when they came in for pre-consultation was to try and attempt to get one common amenity space. I discussed this with our site plan group and perhaps maybe they’d like to answer that but I think there’s some willingness to look at possibly dividing the two into two components but I’ll let them respond to that question. Mr. Pies.

Thank you and through the chair. The, I believe you’re reading that from the recommendation to the approval authority which is a little bit subtly different than something that you would see in a bonus zone where a bonus zone is quite a bit more prescriptive. I would suggest, I don’t want to see the word latitude but there is a bit more of that if you will through the resolution of council to the approval authority. It does talk about consider.

So common amenity area is something that’s talked about in the site plan control by-law, albeit with not a lot of quantitative or even really qualitative aspects to it. We try to strive for a larger consolidated AKA more usable space. That being said, if we get to site plan and we see that these spaces are programmed and sufficient in size and they can function separately but maybe even with some aspects of connectivity there may be some latitude or some views of intent to meet that being applied to this. So again, the recommendation to the approval authority also works on the basis of intent maybe even a bit more loosely than what would be in a bonus zone.

So in essence, I think it’s something that we can work with through the site plan process. And I think as long as we get to the intent bit of that then I think there’s some equity that we can work with the applicant on. Okay, thank you. And I don’t see any further technical questions.

Councillor Ben Hose. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess my first question is regarding the shape of the site, how much of a difficulty has that posed? Mr.

Parker, question around the shape has it caused difficulty? Through the chair, the only difficulty I’ve heard through the process with the shape is that some of the parking areas come too close to the rear property line that’s adjacent to the hydro corridor. And there’s some leeway asked for with regards to the setback of the parking area from a property line. So, but again, I talked to site plan about this and there were some possibility that that could be adjusted at some point through the site plan approval process.

Thank you. So, Madam Chair, I believe it’s, there was supposed to be a 1.5 meter setback from the property line for parking. And I wasn’t, there’s a number of property lines here, but I’m wondering why that would, does that need to be the case in terms of a hydro corridor? The 1.5 meter setback, Mr.

Pease. Thank you. Through the chair, the one and a half meter is a site plan control by-law requirement. And looking at the plan, there is a pinch point near one or maybe a number of the parking areas.

The intent is provide for adequate space for plantings in screening, in this case, a hydro corridor, may not need the full extent of screening. So again, through the process, if the plantings can be achieved broadly, there may be an opportunity there. I think there’s still some opportunity for discussion as the site plan process refines this site in particular. So again, as I mentioned in my previous comments, there is some opportunity or some latitude.

I believe this is coming again from the recommendation to the approval authority. So I believe that those further conversations can happen through that process. Any further technical questions, Councillor? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’ll be looking for a comment on the number of parking spaces. So it seems there’s one per- Is that a technical question? We’re just on technical right now. I just want to sort of direct the question to staff.

Right, well, I’m wondering if that’s considered enough given the parking that already takes place on the street. So this is a property that I probably walked by a few times a week in the morning. So the question is about the parking? Yes, is that— Is it enough if I can go to staff to answer that question?

Sorry to cut you off, Councillor. I’m trying to just direct specific technical questions and then there’ll be opportunities to make comments. Would that be enough to avoid visitors parking on the street? Through the chair, I’m not sure whether I can answer that specifically.

I know that they’ve asked for, normally the parking rate is 1.5 spaces per unit. And they’re asking for it to be reduced to 1.13 per unit. Parking supply or demand is based on who the residents are and that’s difficult to tell out front. So it will depend on the mix of residents within that building as to whether they meet the parking requirement or not.

The parking on the street as the neighbors indicated was mostly people from outside the area, coming into the area and parking on the street and then walking across into the natural area. It wasn’t because of demand from uses along the road. So I don’t think I can answer that question. I don’t think I could tell in the future whether there’ll be a parking problem there or not, but they have asked for a reduction in the required parking on site.

Councillor? Okay, thank you. So we need a sanitary connection. Do we know where that is?

I think at the beginning, Madam Chair, when I’ve been looking at developing this site with the previous owners for, since the beginning of last term and it was clear a pumping station was gonna be necessary for sanitary, but at that point, I don’t think there was even certainty where the sanitary line was. So if I can ask the after question about the sanitary connection, it’s gonna work. Madam Chair, and through you. At this point, we’re considering all the alternatives through the EA process.

So the actual solution for this area and the lands on the north side, the south side of the river will come out of that and then we’ll be able to make some of those technical assessments. I would also note that we have an H-17 on the property. So we do need to ensure that there is sanitary servicing before they can actually develop. So that will be determined for the EA process counselor.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. How long will that EA process take? Through you, Madam Chair, to the counselor. My understanding is that it’s ongoing right now.

So we’re probably looking sometime into next year before the alternatives are known. And then from there, it’ll be a case of funding the alternatives so that they can actually deconstruct it. Okay, thank you. And just, and remind me, I believe that Norlon was rebuilt recently with the force main underneath it.

But there was no other services provided at the same time, isn’t that correct? Through you, Madam Chair, that is correct. But the force main, as I understand it, was to service the pottersburg treatment plant to the east and it allowed us to shuttle flows between Pottersburg and Boxhall as well. So it was more about capacity in the sewer system, that the larger sewer system, as opposed to specific servicing for this particular area, the EA will address the specific servicing.

Okay. Okay, Councilor. - Okay, Councilor. The connection was a brilliant idea, but we didn’t have a little, didn’t have those EA’s done sooner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s all I have for technical questions. Thank you. So I’ll move on to the agent for the applicant.

It’s good evening, Madam Chair. It’s Harry Frucio from Zalaka, pre-ammo of the applicant. First, I just wanted to thank Mr. Parker and staff for their efforts in processing this application and for the positive recommendations relating to the official plan and zoning file amendments, including the policing provisions that will also include four affordable dwelling units.

So we do look forward to planning committee support with these recommendations. However, as we know things do happen in the threes and I’ll complete the loop on this that we did have some concerns about the staff report, which have already been brought out by the Councillors and through Mr. Pease’s proceedings. I’ll just echo those comments briefly.

And I think part of the confusion may lie with the fact that the most up to date site plan was not included in the presentation. The site plan itself is actually very similar, except we did address, I believe, out of the nine requests that were listed in the staff report, we have completed seven of those. But unfortunately, they’re not shown on the site plan that’s before you this evening, but they have been provided to staff. The two that are remaining have been brought up by the Councillor receiving the one being the splitting or the consolidation of the outdoor amenity areas.

In our opinion, that would be difficult to do out of chair and members of the committee because of the triangular shape of the property, having to make sure that we comply with the zoning provisions that are in front of you this evening, including the excessive landscape open space, the at-grade amenity space and the minimum parking requirement. And I just not sure that we can come up with a plan that will satisfy staff and have that one consolidated area without compromising other features of the site. So that’s something we’re looking for some direction on. And I think Mr.

Pease for suggesting there is some flexibility. I think what we’re looking for is some language to that effect because there have been instances in the past where staff noted or interpreted the request to be actually a requirement that it caused some potential issues down the road at site plans. I think it would give us that added comfort to know that there is some flexibility in those requests. And again, we have no issue looking into that.

We just don’t want it to be a requirement and then have to come back to planning committee and then see if we have to make any further changes. So I do appreciate the dialogue that has taken place on so far. There was one other matter that I wanted to bring up and I just noticed that this morning, I think I might have brought it to Mr. Parker’s attention, was in the draft zoning amendment on page 21 of the staff report, specifically section 3.2 of the zoning amendment requires the provision of, and it says an appropriately sized and located ground level outdoor amenity space for the number of residents anticipated.

And the concern there is what does appropriately size mean in the context of a zoning bylaw? I think we just wanted that sort of the, some numbers put to that in a zoning bylaw. And my suggestion would be if we’re satisfied with the plan that’s before us and the information that’s contained in the staff report that the zoning bylaw perhaps should read a provision of 41% square meters of landscape open space, comma of which 8.2 square meters residential units shall be provided for at great outdoor space. And that gives some certainty to both the city and the developer what the expectations are for those two.

Other than that, Madam Chair, as I noted before, we are in support of the recommendation for the amendments and the provision of the four affordable units. We just hope that we can provide some flexibility to the language to back to the site plan approval authority so we can address the remaining comments that need to be addressed through that process. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll go to the public now. Does anyone here from the public that would like to make comments? Please come forward. Thank you for waiting quite a while.

Just state your name and address if you would. My name is Gil Mariano. I own the adjacent property at Four Metal Lily, six and a half acre property that runs alongside of the river and we plan on keeping it that way because my main concern is the environmental impact that this is gonna have on the beautiful area that many people from all over London come to use. As Michael Van Holt said, he’s one of the people I see regularly outside of my friend Gates walking through the beautiful paths.

There’s many animals, deer, that are gonna be displaced, all the big trees that are gonna be removed for this property. A lot of my neighbors have the same concerns. I’m not sure why they haven’t all shown up to voice them, but I’m here to speak for the street. And I tried to reach out to the developer because we missed the open house.

We didn’t get the letter until the day after it was the virtual open house and they didn’t reach back to me at all with any sort of information. I just wanted some info on basic info on the development and no one reached out to me. These are just my initial concerns. Aside from everything everyone said, no sidewalks, poor roads, bad lighting, it’s gonna cost a ton to make this thing and it’s gonna cause a lot of damage to the area.

There’s not nearly enough parking spots. Everyone knows that. 91 spots for, 91 units, come on guys. I live right there.

I see the amount of cars that are on the street every day. There’s starting at six in the morning, there’ll be a dozen cars there already. And there’s gonna be no parking for these people that come to visit the area and there’s not gonna be visitor parking for the people visiting. And one car per house is ridiculous.

You know, everyone’s got an average of two cars per household. So I just don’t know how it’s gonna work. And those are my concerns. Hopefully you hear them.

Thank you. And I’d like to ask if there’s anyone else from the public that would like to speak to the recommendation front of us, please come forward. Hi. Welcome.

My name’s Patricia Green and I live in Old North and I’m one of the regular users of this environmentally sensitive area. It seems there was a lot of talk about servicing for this 91 unit, was it? Condo, set of condos, which apparently is an amendment to the original 8960 units that were allowed. Although I read, I heard 60 and I read 75, I don’t know what it’s supposed to be, but neither here nor there.

It seems that amendments are the rule of the day. Let’s just make an amendment to make it easier for the developer to do something they really shouldn’t do. So the point about this is that this is London’s opportunity to, and your opportunity to save an environmentally sensitive area, one of the few remaining within the city borders, which many, many people use, the plant life and animal life, which is within this area, is it’s full of rare, this area is full of rare, very important plants. I don’t know about animals, but I know about plants and a development of this size right across from the river.

I mean, within, what is it, a hundred feet, thank you, is going to affect that area. There is no question about that. This development is too big. Once I’m in fill, maybe a much smaller unit maybe wouldn’t be such an effect, but all the same.

It seems that there is no servicing to that area. It is not a residential area. There are very few houses on that street. It’s not a residential corner.

There are two houses there. That is not a residential corner. There are very few people living in that area, and that is a really good thing. We’ve got an urban farm there, we’ve got the river, and these wonderful people who’ve determined that they’re, how many acres, six acres, will never ever be developed.

Opposite where this unit wants to be placed. I know, we haven’t discussed the trees that will be cut down, the mature trees that will be cut down for this parking lot. The climate emergency is real. We’re saying, well, we don’t have enough parking spots.

And this particular location, in this location, the school is closing, so people with children won’t be renting these condos because there’s no place for their children to go to school, or if they go to school, they’ll have to take buses more climate emergency because they can’t walk to school. It’s also a consideration that the, apparently the property beside this proposed unit is now for sale. Hmm, I wonder what will happen with that property and the one beside it. All of a sudden, that is going to be one long row of development, and all of that affects this sensitive environment area, the river.

It’s right on this river. Is this developer going to take care of that sensitive environment? Is the city prepared to prove that they can take care of the environment of our region? The fact that it’s close to Hamilton Road is only advantageous for people with cars, but by the way, as mentioned, there is no, it is very difficult already to turn left from Norlon onto Hamilton Road.

Very difficult. There’s lots of traffic there already. This is just only going to add to traffic. You have about a minute left.

So, just repeating. The servicing, which is in development, I don’t even know why this is being discussed without the servicing being assured. It seems that servicing of this unit would cause immense negative effect to the region. And I think that there have been too many gives over to the developer in this case.

Too many amendments to say we can make this happen. It looks like a negative plan. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you.

And I’ll ask from the public one more time, if there’s anyone here that would like to speak from the public to the application, please come forward. I see none. And with that, I’ll go to the committee to close the PPM. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Turner.

If we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Ready for comments, questions or a motion. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think it’s important to address a couple of the concerns we just heard from the public and I threw you to our staff. This development is, and wanna make sure that we’re correct for the record here. It’s 80 units, not 91.

It’s 80 units with 91 parking spaces, is that correct? It’s the density that is the 91 per hectare. I’ll go to staff, but I have 91 units per hectare going from 60 units. But if I can confirm from staff the density as well as the amount of units.

Yes, it is 80 units. Four of those affordable units. And it’s at a density of 91 units per hectare. That’s correct.

Okay, so we do have some visitor parking spaces being provided there. We just as a council approved parking reductions a couple of weeks ago. And this is yet another example where, yes, it won’t be families with two cars moving in here because they will only have one parking space. And that’s what we’ll be provided for there.

I am prepared to move the staff recommendation. And I think it’s also important to note that, well, I appreciate and I utilize the metal with the ESA and myself. The ESA is actually on the south side of the river. This is on the north side of the river on the opposite side of an open spaces zone.

So I don’t disagree that when we have an infill near an ESA, it has an impact. But this is not being developed on the ESA itself. And from a planning perspective, we do have to take that into consideration. In moving the staff recommendation though, I’d like to make to what I think are relatively minor language changes to the site plan approval authority being requested section C.

And I hope the colleagues will support these. I do genuinely think the language is very minor changes here. And on part V, which is the provide a minimum of 1.5 meters from property boundaries to parking areas. I’d just like to add to that it being noted that the full setback may not be attainable on the north side immediately adjacent to the hydro corridor without impacting the ability to deliver the minimum parking requirements.

And I think that’s consistent with what we heard from both the applicant and our staff that there can be some flexibility around those at the hydro corridor. And the other one is actually the C part one. And I asked about these amenity spaces. I think rather than saying rearrange the parking aisles and buildings to provide one adequately sized common area amenity area, we heard both the applicant and staff saying there needs, you know, flexibility is important around this.

So I think I’d like that first one to read, ensure that adequate functional common amenity space is provided. And what functional looks like is still open to interpretation by both parties as they work this out, whether it’s one or two spaces. Rather than saying one, I think it’s just better to say adequate functional areas or area and allow that to be worked out between our staff and the applicant at site plan and see where that goes. So I hope that there’ll be support for those minor language changes.

We heard from both our staff and the applicant, I think that they just want to ensure there’s some flexibility around this as it goes to site plan. So I hope that there’ll be support for that. And if I could just confirm, I being the change, just adding adequate functional size common amenity area. And just for the sake of the clerk, I want to go back to V and if you could just provide that additional— I’ve just take that over and sent it over to the clerk so she has that.

Thank you. So we’ll look for those amendments. Is that all, Councillor? I’ll go to Councillor Van Halst, if the committee will allow me.

Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess I’ve got one more technical question that I left out regarding the stacked townhouses. And I’m wondering if there will be any, any single floor units on the ground floor, something that would be more accessible for a senior, perhaps would prefer not to be walking in stairs.

Sure, who can answer that question? Through the chair, I would refer that one to the applicants agent. They’re more aware of what types of units they’re looking at. And I know through the affordable housing bonus provision, there was some agreement that there would be three, one bedroom units and one, two bedroom unit, but I don’t know if there are two story units or one story, but I’ll defer answering that question to Mr.

Fruzios. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you to Councillor van Holz. At this stage, we haven’t determined which, how accessibility will be, will be operated, but we do know that it will be done to the Ontario Building Code standards for accessibility. Now, how they will be comprised, we know that there will be at least two affordable more, no more than two affordable units in two of the buildings.

How they’re positioned, we haven’t gone through those details yet, but certainly we’ll take those comments. When we go through the site plan approval stage, I’ll take those back to my client for consideration, Councillor. Thank you very much. And to that end, let me add that this is, it’s an interesting area and a number of years ago, it was not only this site, but a number of neighbors all got together and said, hey, couldn’t we create a nice retirement development here for seniors, because it’s an ideal place for people who might want to live fairly close to some amenities, especially the dog park.

So they would be able to walk their dogs along the path to the park as a daily retirement ritual. And it would be nice to see that be possible for some. So, and of course, the townhouses, the street stories are hard to navigate for some people. So I know older members of my extended family can’t deal with stairs.

And I’m sure that’s the same for many people. I wanted to have a question through you, just to have about the traffic. So we would be adding quite a few more cars, I think, in this neighborhood there. Is that a question for transportation?

Yeah, in this neighborhood might only have 80 cars. So if we were to double that on the North Line app and Metality Road, what do we anticipate that the traffic’s gonna be like attempting to turn off of Metality on to Hamilton or off of normal on to Hamilton, particularly left, I guess, will be the challenge. Both staff can respond to the question around traffic. Madam Chair, I’ll take a shot at it and try and help Councilman also with this one.

So given that, as we noted, we’re bringing forward applications in order to meet the expiration of the bonus thing in the planning act, some of those finer details like a traffic impact assessment would probably be something, it would be something that we would consider through the site plan when that comes in. Also noting that we have an age 17, again, noting that we have an age 17, we still have to ensure that they’re servicing available. So while it’s not ideal, it is something we’ll address a bit later on in the process. Councilor?

Thank you. However, I wouldn’t like a few more details on that, Madam Chair. When you say that you’re gonna consider the traffic impact in a site plan later on, what kind of changes would be made to a site plan if we discovered that the traffic impact was going to be too great? Through you, Madam Chair, at this point, there aren’t significant volumes proposed by this development, but if we’re looking at turning movement onto Hamilton Road, those are all things that are transportation department absolutely would be looking at.

Forgive me, I’m not sure if we have a traffic light at the intersection of Middle Lillian Hamilton, but they would be looking to control access out onto Hamilton Road in order to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement once that site plan comes forward. So that would be done through the site plan process? Okay, thank you. Well, it may be that an intersection would be helpful there, Madam Chair, ‘cause I do point out that there is a very large property just across the street in Fairmont School, which has closed as of this year.

All my best to the Fairmont Falcons, they sat there closing. So we’ll look to see what happens in terms of development for there. I’m looking at a number of trees. That was one of the things brought up by the resident who came out this evening to speak.

How many of the trees on, will any of the trees on this site be retained? Or do we know that yet? There is a question around the tree preservation plan, Mr. Parker.

Yes, through the chair, I believe the comments from the landscape architect was that there was no natural trees on the property. There may be some trees on the boundaries, but there’s actually none on the property. And there’s no natural features on that property as well. So as far as I can tell from the comments, there’s nothing of any value, other than aesthetic value be retained on the property.

Okay, well, thank you. That’s great news if some of those trees can be retained. There’s a line of trees that looks like on the north edge, mind you if those came down, there’s trees on the other side of the hydro corridor. There’s a couple of lovely trees on the just a long metal living road, but they look like they’re a ways in.

So I wondered if those might be impacted. Okay, Madam Chair, I’m not sure if I have any further questions. Oh, except for this, I know that there’s four affordable housing units and based on the 89 plan of 10% of the lift, I think that does that mean we’re adding 40 units as a result of these four affordable units? Yes, that’s a question on the calculation for the affordable housing units.

There’s four of them. Through the chair, right from the start, the applicant has offered four affordable units as part. And after doing the calculations, that’s exactly what we were looking for in terms of what we normally require through the calculation. But the applicant or the agent has indicated the applicant has agreed from the initial, the onset that four affordable units would be provided.

Yes, and I’ll thank the applicant for that. They were quite willing to provide some affordable housing. But I see in this instance, it looks like we doubled the size of the development because of that. And as I said, I hope some of these units are appropriate for seniors, aging in place in the East End as a demand.

And as the previous owners and some of the neighbors had hoped that this would be a great place for a retirement. So thank you. I think that concludes my questions. I’m not sure how to approach the question of parking.

Although I do appreciate as well, Councillor Lewis’s change in the wording. I think that will assist with development going forward. I’m pleased that people weren’t concerned about the height and nature of this. I’ll point out that I think originally a six-story apartment building was intended for this site.

And maybe through you, Madam Chair, I can ask if staff were aware of that. And if so, how did this change from an apartment building to stacked townhouses? Okay. Yes, to the chair.

Actually, I was involved in not originally inquiry for a six-story apartment building. And similarly, there was concerns raised the time about the servicing to accommodate that apartment building. And the inquiry decided not to proceed with an application. I think it was just at an inquiry stage when he started and they decided not to proceed with that.

Okay. Thank you. All right. A lot of this will depend on the servicing and the EA and we’ll look to see what happens.

But Madam Chair, those are my questions. Thank you, Councillor. We’ll leave it to your committee. Thank you.

I will go to committee for a, I know we’ve made some adjustments, Councillor Lewis. So we do have a motion on the floor. Any further, oh, I need a seconder, Councillor Layman. Any further comments?

If I may, just make them from the chair here as chair. I just want to thank the public for coming out. It’s been a long evening. I just want to follow up on Councillor Van Hal’s question around the trees.

I’m looking at the trees in the photograph and I’m looking at the plan and staff to indicate that most of these trees will be retained. I just want to confirm that, given that there aren’t that many trees on the property, there are a few, but they are on that boundary and just trying to compare the site plan. In answer to the chair’s question, I indicated that the landscaped architect indicated that there was no breeze of natural significance on the property. Whether those trees are retained as part of the landscaped open space area is something that we can deal with through site plan or the applicant’s willingness to retain those trees as part of their landscape open space area.

Okay, thank you for that. That’s one method of doing it is if the applicant agrees to retain the existing trees and they’re healthy and so on and so forth, they could become part of the landscape open space area. And that will be done through the site plan process. Site plan through talking to the applicant.

Okay, so it’s still to be determined. If I’m a council van host, is it regarding the tree question or I’m just in the middle of making comments here? Yes, that’s so I guess I misunderstood staff’s statements when they said there’s no trees of natural significance on the property. That didn’t mean that the trees I’m looking at aren’t on the property.

It meant they’re considered insignificant, is that? To be determined from what I understand, Councilor? And if I may, I am supportive of this application. I know how difficult it is.

I’ve been there, how your neighborhood starts to change with development coming in. But we are here tonight, the intensification, the extra intensification is resulting from the affordable housing units. We do have to make a decision on that. It seems that there’s still a number of things to be determined through the environmental assessment.

And I think that is going to be really important as it relates to all the servicing. So still a lot more work to be done here. Again, thank you for the community for coming out. And I see no further comments.

And with that, we can proceed with the changes made by Councilor Lewis to vote. Councilor Turner, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Moving forward, we’re gonna go to items for direction 4.1, which is 183, 197, and street.

This is the proposed designation by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act. I wonder if I could just go to maybe Mr. Barrett, just asking why this is back. And before we go to the delegation request committee, I’m at your hands, but I’ll start with staff to lean to us why this is back.

Yes, through you, Madam Chair, this is Lord and Heritage Planner. At the May 3rd, 2022 municipal council meeting, council stated its intention to designate the bill resources on the municipal addresses at 183 and 197 and street under part four, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notice of council’s intention to designate was served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and was published in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. The objection period ended on June 18th, 2022.

In notice of objection was received by the city clerk on behalf of the owner of the property within the required timeframe set out in the act. The act requires that municipal council consider and make a decision on an objection within 90 days from the end of the objection period. Council may now decide to withdraw, amend, or affirm its intention to designate. Council has until September 16th, 2022 to make a decision on the objection.

So this is why this is before council tonight. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. And if I could just add that, Lord did a great job of laying out the process, but the reason this is also in front of you is because this was as a result of a recent change to the legislation.

So this is a new step that’s actually required. So in the past, when council would have issued a notice of intent to designate, there is an appeal period. If an appeal had been received, then that would have gone straight off to the Conservation Review Board. If there was no appeal received, then the designating bylaw would have come into force in effect, but this recent change to the Heritage Act changed that up somewhat whereby the first opportunity after an appeal is that in fact, that comes back to council to see if they want to affirm that decision.

And if so, then we go forward with the designating bylaw. Thank you. I will now go to committee if there aren’t any further questions, we do have a delegation request by Mr. Soufan from York Developments as the committee.

If they would like to grant the delegation request, which would be up to five minutes, or it can be brought forward at a future meeting or it can be denied. I think those are the three. Councillor Layman. Yeah, I moved that to hear Mr.

Sand speaking. Okay, so we have a mover to receive the delegation tonight. Councillor Hill here seconds. No debate, can we proceed to vote or any comments?

I see none. So we can proceed to vote. In the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Mr.

Soufan, welcome. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members. You have got to five minutes and proceed. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.

I think it’ll be very short. I think the communication speaks pretty clearly in regards to the objection to designate 183 and 197 Ann Street. I think this original designation came into effect prior to the more recent development proposal that was ultimately approved at 183 and 197 and not that long ago. And I think we’re in a bit of a conundrum here.

The development proposal was approved, but in order for that development proposal to progress the heritage designation should not come into full-person effect. I think we can apply some of the heritage aspects and features via the most recent approved proposal rather than designate 183 and 197 Ann. But I think it was sort of the chicken and the egg and what came first. And I think we’re in a position now where we have to do a bit of housekeeping with all due respect and for lack of a better term.

I think this is a decision of committee and council ultimately to figure out if this development proposal is going to proceed under the approved plan or would need to come back with further amendments I guess based on a heritage designation. So thank you for allowing me to speak and I’ll be here to answer any questions. Thank you. So I’ll go to committee.

I wonder if I can ask a question in the meantime. I know it’s a little complicated I think in terms of the process here. So we’ve got some new changes under the Ontario Heritage Act. I’ve got a question to staff about if we, how does the demolition requests work?

Are there opportunities to revisit the designation with the demolition requested, is that changed or just wanting to know a little bit more about that? Through you, Madam Chair, I’ll begin to answer your question then. Mr. Barramay come in as well.

There is no demolition request that’s been issued demolition request submitted yet. So right now the issue is to affirm the designation, to withdraw the designation or to amend it. There is no demolition request that’s been submitted. And if I may Madam Chair, just to add to that, the change in the bylaw that sort of throws this little swing into it, sorry, in the legislation.

In fact, allows council the opportunity just to consider whether or not the reasons that they considered in the first instance still apply. The points raised by Mr. Soufan, in fact, don’t change the reasons for the designation. They speak more to the timing.

And the timing again is not, in fact, what’s not contemplated under the act, where in fact, and this council has been looking and attempting to do that, which is where you deal with the heritage issues first, and you determine a property’s heritage value or not, and then you deal with the development application. And that is in fact what you did with this application. If you recall, there was the issue of whether or not the property was worthy of designation. I do recall, and there are members of this committee who can connect to that, there was a lot of concern about whether or not that designating would in fact impair or stop the development that proposal that council then subsequently considered.

And the answer that I provided, and I will provide again, is that designating and the designating bylaw lays out what council deems to be important and worthy of designation and preservation as it relates to these structures on the property. The application that is in front of you that council has already decided and taken a position on provided for the redevelopment of this property that would result in the removal of the heritage properties on the property if it went forward as proposed. However, it was proposed that there would be some mitigation measures brought forward that would include reclamation of some of the identified features, some commemoration with respect to the uses that would be provided, and then commemoration with respect to how that story would be told on the site. But there was also the concern and the consideration of the crash wall and what that needed to be done.

And so with all of those things all thrown together, the final position of council on the development application was to approve it, but to approve it with conditions that would address some of those things. And in addressing all of those things, it would be possible that in fact, the development could be somewhat altered from what was initially proposed. Regardless of what would come forward in the future, it is highly likely that it would involve a request for the demolition of the properties that exist on the site. And the information and advice that I provided back then is that by designating the property, it provides council with an ability to determine the outcome of those designated structures.

When and if an application is made to demolish a designated structure, council can do one of three things. They can approve the request for the demolition, they can refuse the request for the demolition, or they can approve the request for the demolition with conditions. And it was that third option that I believe council was somewhat considering in their consideration of the application because it would be consideration of conditions that would go with the demolition of a designated heritage property. If council does not designate the property, it has no status under the Ontario Heritage Act and does not have any protections.

And therefore, if an application was brought forward in the future to demolish the property, there would be no ability for council to apply any of those conditions because in fact, you wouldn’t have a designated structure in which to apply conditions. So you would not see an application for demolition and nor then would you be able to provide any conditions associated with that demolition. So regardless of where council may land down the road in the future, if the property is not designated, you would not have the ability to have that consideration as to whether or not you wish to attach consideration to the demolition of the property. If it’s not designated, that consideration does not provide it.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. So we do have a recommendation in front of this committee. The applicant still does have a right of appeal to a decision.

So if council does affirm their intent to designate and introduce the by-law to designate, there then is an appeal to the designated by-law. So this was an opportunity to appeal council’s intent. Council can consider whether or not they wish to go forward. If you don’t wish to go forward, it stops it.

If you do wish to go forward and designate the property, there is still an opportunity for the applicant to appeal that and that would then not be heard by council. Committee here is pondering. I can use that word. I as the chair have to wait.

Oh, sorry about that, Councillor Layman. I’m looking the wrong way. Please proceed. Thank you.

And yeah, what Mr. Barrett explained was my understanding back when we really discuss this and propose this order of business. We designate this and at the time, it doesn’t preclude a council when development proposal or demolition request comes through to approve the demolition request with or without conditions. So that’s what we decide and I will, we affirm that and so I will move staff recommendation.

And I am looking for a seconder. I will second, see any other hands. Any further comments? If not, we can proceed to vote.

Opposing to vote, the motion carries three to two. So moving on to our second item for direction. This is 1067, 1069, 1071, Wellington Road. We refer this back and it is in front of us.

Comments from committee? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know this is a, actually, I see Councillor Ploza has joined us and I was about to say, I was the seconder on Councillor Ploza’s motion, but as the word Councillor, I will yield the floor to her if she wishes to go first.

Councillor Ploza, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for recognizing me, recognizing I’m speaking as the word Councillor and visiting members to this committee. And as the hour grows very late, thank you to all those who are still here.

I’ve been with you for most of the meeting. And you’ve dealt with lots. This was referred back from Council realizing previous comments that have already been stated tonight, that it’s our last opportunity to get these affordable units in. Just to reiterate is the word Councillor residents on the nearby streets don’t like this development.

They don’t want the infill. They believe it should go south of the 401 for the most part. Speaking as the word Councillor balancing, the rest of the needs of the city of London, and the words not nearing these streets. This is what the city envisioned when they established a transit village and we put in the bus rapid transit corridor.

This is a complete neighborhood. Fanshawe College has their south campus right across the street. The mall’s there, there’s grocery offerings. The Southland and Knee Center has many services that could service these residents as well.

My concern is to try and get this through staff and the developer have worked for years behind the scenes. They’ve worked with the community in the neighboring streets, bringing many of their concerns into this application, including the setbacks that why Montgomery Road is now 10 stories, talking about clear glass balconies that might be frosted or now it’s a transparent balcony, just to make sure that the facade is broken up as that was a quick question from staff. So lots of work has been gone on behind the scenes with the community with developers and back and forth, trying to get this before us tonight, realizing that the developer has come back with a longer rate of time for units being 35 years and a higher mix of those tree bedroom units, the housing corporation, it’s that they would be used. They won’t go to waste neighbors that I’ve gone out and spoke to last week in the community, despite the fact that I’m still don’t like this development.

They believe the neighborhood is so welcoming and wonderful for families realizing the library and community services and a splash pad and green spaces right there that in that aspect it does fit. So I’m asking for you to approve this tonight, which would be going against just receiving and filing this report. I know this property has other interests for commercial uses. So it’s not even just the affordable units that we could potentially be using tonight if the developer chooses to go commercial instead.

We could be losing all 12,072 units for housing period. I’m not a developer, I don’t know how this goes, just I know this is an up and coming area of the city, though for housing commercial opportunities and we know what the housing market is and the reality, what the reality is in the city and just would really like to use this opportunity is once something’s built, it’s 80 to 100 years, it could be there, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I’m sure that Councillor Ploughs has meant 1200, not 12,000 units, but just the hour is late. So hey, if you got 12,000 units on that property, I’m gonna need a referral back to see a new site plan, but the 1200 units are important. And so yes, this is, I know this is a report indicated to be received. I do need to ask through you, Madam Chair and through our clerks, because this was to make sure that the by-law was clear before Council votes on it, because there were some changes to the by-law.

So do we actually vote to approve it here, or do we vote to receive the information and then Council makes the vote to approve? I just, I wanna be clear on the process. Yeah, thank you for that question, because what I understand, we’re making the three minor changes in the by-law that we referred back. I would like staff to clarify exactly what are we doing here tonight.

Through the chair, the committee would make the recommendation the same as any application, and the recommendation would go to Council. So we’re going to be approving or not approving the by-law. The recommendation has already been approved. I just need to understand what we’re doing here tonight again.

I know it’s late, I’m kind of foggy, but it’s important. May I please ask that you go to W City Clerk for our voice-like power, please? This voice-like power? Thank you, through the chair.

So the committee will have to make a recommendation just as if you were receiving the report for the first time. I know this was referred back for some additional refinement, but you can’t simply receive the additional staff report. You have to provide some direction if you want a by-law introduced at Council. Thank you for that, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you for that clarity. That helps a great deal. And I’ve heard Councillor Palose’s comments, and I agree with her so I am going to move receipt of the report and approval of the application. And looking for a secondary, Councillor Hillier, Councillor Turner.

I might, I’m not going to support the motion, but if I might help Councillor Lewis with this, I think the motion should be to receive the report and move the attached by-law. I think that the intent is to do that, to be specific in that motion. And otherwise, there’s a few recommendations that have come forward. Staff recommendation was different than what this is.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, and actually I think I agree with Councillor Turner, but I would like to check with Ms. Westlake Power to make sure that that’s consistent with the advice that she just gave us as well. Ms.

Westlake Power? Yes, thank you through the chair. I have been messaging with Ms. Lozinski, your committee clerk with respect to that.

And the usual language around introducing a by-law at the next council meeting will be included in the motion. We’ll need to be included with the motion. That is, of course, presuming that the by-law that is attached to this report that you have in front of you tonight is to your satisfaction. Thank you.

I assume you have any further questions from committee members, Councillor Turner. Thank you, if I might speak to the recommendation that’s coming forward, one that’s just been placed on the floor. We had fairly extensive debate about this last time this came to pass, and we did as well at council. I remain pretty strongly opposed to the action that’s been taken here.

I think for a number of reasons. One that we discussed before about track records and developers, this is a significant investment to this developer and applicant has made. They have a track record of building. They may appeal, but I think that’s rather unlikely considering what delays might cost for them.

I think this is clearly one of those moves that they throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. I can’t blame them for that. That’s totally what they’re supposed to do. It’s not what we’re supposed to do.

I was frustrated at the last meeting because we should not be negotiating on the floor of council. It’s completely inappropriate. The same thing would happen with labor negotiations. We shouldn’t be doing that at council.

In fact, we have staff that are the people who do the negotiations. We set policy. They negotiate within the parameters of our policy. And as soon as it comes here for a debate negotiation, what it does is it pulls the rug out from staff at every turn from then on, because they know that they can come here to get a different decision than what staff would give them.

I’m tired of this happening. And I think I kind of put this as a warning for you and going into the next term. You’ll find yourselves over and over and increasingly. So having developers come and disputing what’s happened at the staff negotiation level because they look at you as the final arbitrators.

And that’s not good. It’s a really, really, really poor practice. I’m going to turn my mind a little bit now to the affordable housing component. And this is where I was upset.

If you take 93 units at 80% for 50 years, that maths out to 4,650 housing unit years. If you take the developers request as being put forward here, 65 units at 80% for 35 years, that’s 2,275 housing unit years. That’s more than 50% reduction in the amount of affordable housing in this development. You just cut half of all the affordable housing in a marquee development.

One of the largest ones that we’re going to see in years. And to give you a context of how much affordable housing that is, that’s what’s set to 28 units. 28 units is pretty much the size of an entire affordable housing building. Ones that we pay for and we bought.

The ones on Baseline Road, Sylvan Street are in the neighborhood of about 30 to 40 units. So we just cut intentionally an entire affordable housing building. You know, one stroke of the pen because somebody came and knocked on our door and said, we don’t like this. It’s bad policy.

Again, we talked at length about how much of a priority affordable housing was for this council. This moves us in the opposite direction. And it’s disappointing. I think we can do better.

I think we were on the track to do better. And this is an opportunity lost. So I hope my colleagues will reject the motion on the floor. And then we have a chance to go back and bring the staff recommendation forward.

Any other comments? Oh, I’ve got the clerk. Thank you through the chair, man. Please ask the committee for a motion to go past 11, please.

So I will look to Councillor Lewis, moving the motion, I’m looking for a seconder to go past 11, Councillor Layman. And can we do a hand vote on this? Oh, no, we can’t, we have to go. Oh, that’s the, we do a hand vote to go past 11.

Sorry, just had something jump up here. I wasn’t sure what it was. Yes, again, vote is fine, thanks. Okay, so we’re gonna do a hand vote to go past 11.

Yes, I think it was. The motion carries, three to two. Okay, so we can proceed going forward with the items that we’re discussing and I don’t see any further comments. On this, I don’t think I could have said it better if the committee will allow me to speak from the chair or maybe I have to give up the chair since I’m not going to be supporting it.

So I will give the chair over to Vice Chair. Oh, Lord, Councillor. Thank you for allowing me to speak to this. I don’t think I could have said it better than, Councillor Turner, negotiating is not what I, I think we should be doing here on the floor.

Affordable housing, we need these units. We need them in our city. We try to promote the opportunities for more affordable housing and I am gonna be consistent with the way I’ve been voting all along and I know this will eventually go back to council that I will not be supporting the motion. And I’ll turn the chair back to Councillor Roberts.

Thank you, Councillor Lehman. And with that, I don’t see any other comments. Councillor Van Halst. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have a question about affordable units. When we say 20% less, is that through you to staff? Is that 20% less of the average for London? Or is it 20% less than the average in particular housing development?

Do we refer into the 20%? Yes, what is that based on? A spirit. It’s the Madam Chair, it’s the average market rent for the London CMA.

Councillor Van Halst. Okay, so that’s interesting to me, Madam Chair, ‘cause maybe I can also ask how widely does the rents vary, say from the east end to the west? I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that question, how the rates vary, if you could be a little bit more specific and ask the question of staff so they can respond, please. Okay, Madam Chair, well, I think that in some cases in the east end, all the units are gonna be falling categories simply because they’re 20% less than what’s the average, whereas some units in other areas are always gonna seem more deeply discounted because those, the units in those developments are always gonna be 20% more than what would be the average, so.

I can ask that question of staff, but from what I understand they use the city average, but if staff can make, address that question, please. The census, the average market rent for the London CMA is the standard that has been used. There are variations within the area, it’s my understanding that at this point there’s actually very little variation between the various reporting zones within the London CMA. Okay, thank you, I appreciate that, that clarification.

Thank you, and I see no further questions, we can proceed to vote, it was Councillor Hill here. I was in the vote, the motion carries three to two. And number five, deferred matters, additional business. I see none, number six, we have a confidential, and I wonder if I can go to the clerk for the confidential, while we’re going in camera.

Through the chair, the reason for going in camera tonight is a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, from the solicitor and officers and employees of the corporation. The subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the corporation. And I am looking for a motion to go in camera, moved by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Lewis, And do we need a— can we do a—