Open Council

12th Meeting of City Council

Open Council

12th Meeting of City Council

September 6, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:02 PM;  it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance, Councillors M. Salih, J. Helmer, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Turner, S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Hillier discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 8 (5.1) of the 10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 1 on the list, by indicating that his family puts on festivals in the park.

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest in Item 3 (2.2) of the 12 Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee as well as the associated Bill No. 339, having to do with the Municipal Accommodation Tax and Short-term accommodations, by indicating that he has rented out his home through Airbnb in the past and may do so again in the future.

2.   Recognitions

2.1   His Worship the Mayor recognized the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships Recipients (Virtual Recognition)

2.2   His Worship the Mayor Recognized City of London Employees who have achieved 25 Years of Service during 2022:

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1    Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/12/CSC)

4.2    Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/12/CSC)

4.3    Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/12/CSC)

4.4    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.4/12/CSC)

4.5    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

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. (6.1/14/PEC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, In Closed Session, from 4:34 PM to 4:46 PM.

Councillor S. Turner enters the meeting at 4:44 PM.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

5.1   11th Meeting held on August 2, 2022

2022-08-02 Council Minutes - Complete

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by M. Hamou

That the Minutes of the 11th Meeting, held on August 2, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following Communications BE RECEIVED, and BE FORWARDED, as noted on the Agenda:

6.1     3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road (Z-9521)

1.  A. Soufan, President, York Developments

6.2     712 Base Line Road East (Z- 9474)

  1. M. Poddar, Planner II, SBM and D. Traher, VP, Westdell Development Corp.

6.3     1737 Richmond Street (Z-9470)

  1. S. Rasanu, Planner, SBM and D. Traher, VP, Westdell Development Corp.

6.4     183 and 197 Ann Street

1.  H. Elmslie

2.  M. Coles

3.  A.M. Valastro

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-08-30 SPPC Report 12

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 12th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 2.2.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

Councillor J. Helmer discloses a pecuniary interest with respect to Item 2.2, having to do with the Municipal Accommodation Tax and Short-term Accommodations, by indicating that he has rented home in past with AirBNB and may do so again in the future.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 3rd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 11, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (4.1) Allocation of Remaining London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) Funding

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the Civic Administration, including (but not limited to) staff in Social and Health Development BE DIRECTED to work together with Community Partners to develop London Community Recovery Network (LCRN) business cases with a focus on addressing London’s social recovery, especially in mitigating the effects of homelessness, precarious employment, food insecurity, etc; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 25, 2022 from K. Pagniello, Executive Director, M. Laliberte, Staff Lawyer and T. Kiefer, Housing Support Worker, Neighbourhood Legal Services with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Amended By-law to Include Short-Term Accommodations (Relates to Bill No. 339)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated August 30, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on September 6, 2022, with respect to the by-law entitled “A By-law to Impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax”.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2   12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-08-22 CSC Report 12

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Closed Road Allowance - Upper Canada Crossing

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a closed public highway described as part of Upper Canada Crossing, abutting Lots 24 and 25, Plan 33M-624, and a one foot reserve being Block 186, Plan 33M-624 (the “Subject Property”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and,

b)    the subject property BE TRANSFERRED to Southside Construction Management Limited.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Municipal Compliance Audit Committee (Relates to Bill No.’s 336 and 337)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee:

a)    the proposed by-law as 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 establish a Municipal Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election in accordance with section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended;

b)    the proposed by-law as 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 approve the appointments to the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election in accordance with section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended; and,

c)    the Elections Reserve BE APPROVED as the source of funding for the annual operating costs related to the Municipal Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Rail Safety Week 2022

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 3, 2022 from CN, September 19 - 25, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Rail Safety Week 2022.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 10, 2022 from N’Amerind (London) Friendship Centre Inc., September 30, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (4.4) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Canadian Islamic History Month (2007) and Ontario Islamic Heritage Month (2016)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 8, 2022 from City of London Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, the month of October 2022 BE PROCLAIMED as Canadian Islamic History Month (2007) and Ontario Islamic Heritage Month (2016).

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Wrongful Conviction Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated August 8, 2022 from International Wrongful Conviction Day Committee, October 2, 2022 BE RECEIVED and no action BE TAKEN.

Motion Passed

8.3   11th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-08-23 CWC Report 11

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 11th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

8.3.2   (2.1) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-Law (Relates to Bill No. 346)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022, to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London”. (2022-T08)

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant Rotating Drum Thickener Equipment Single Source

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, related to the purchase of a rotating drum thickener at Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)        the contract for purchase of a rotating drum thickener BE AWARDED to JWC Environmental Canada as a single source procurement for a total value of $171,295.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)        the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)        the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)        the approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)        the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Basement Flooding Grant Program By-Law Amendment (Relates to Bill No. 338)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 6, 2022, to amend By-law No. A.-7562-160, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal and replace By-law A.-7015-285, being The Grants for Sump Pump, Sewage Ejector and Storm Drain Connection Grant Program By-law” by deleting Schedule “A” to the By-law and by replacing it with a new Schedule “A” to clarify language and terminology within the By-law and revise the funding upset limits to account for inflation. (2022-D03)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Consultant Design Fee Extension Award Labatt Sanitary Siphon

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, related to the award of additional consulting fees to R.V. Anderson Associates Limited for the Labatt Sanitary Siphon Infrastructure Renewal Project:

a)    the engineering design fees for R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (RVA) BE INCREASED by $297,474.00 in accordance with the estimates, on file, to an upset amount of $506,287.00, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)     the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project; and,

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (3.1) 2021 London Transit Commission Annual Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2021 London Transit Commission Annual Report, as appended to the Agenda, and the delegation from K. Paleczny, General Manager, London Transit Commission, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED. (2022-T03)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at August 15, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4   14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-08-22 PEC Report - Full

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 7, 13, 14, 16 and 17.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.3   (2.3) Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan - Update

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.4   (2.4) Building Division Monthly Report - June 2022

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.2) 3493 Colonel Talbot Road - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-14504)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.6   (3.1) Zoning By-law: Patio Restrictions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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 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

8.4.8   (3.3) 140-142 Wellington Street - Request to Remove Properties from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.9   (3.4) Demolition Request for Heritage Designated Property at 520 Ontario Street, Old East Heritage Conservation District

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.10   (3.5) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9499) (Relates to Bill No. 348)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.11   (3.6) A Portion of 4519, 4535 & 4557 Colonel Talbot Road (Z-9433) (Relates to Bill No. 349)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.12   (3.7) 604 Beaverbrook Avenue (OZ-9483) (Relates to Bill No.’s 340 and 350)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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;

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

8.4.15   (3.10) 21-41Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue (OZ-9500) (Relates to Bill No.’s 341 and 353)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, 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

8.4.7   (3.2) 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road (Z-9521) (Relates to Bill No. 347)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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 (15 to 0)

8.4.13   (3.8) 712 Baseline Road East (Z-9474) (Relates to Bill No. 351)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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 (15 to 0)

8.4.14   (3.9) 1737 Richmond Street (Z-9470) (Relates to Bill No. 352)

Motion made 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 made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That clause 3.9 BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“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 attached proposed by-law 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 appended to the staff report dated August 22, 2022 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 (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That Item 14, clause 3.9, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.16   (4.1) 183 and 197 Ann Street - Proposed Designation By-laws Under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act - Consideration of Objections (Relates to Bill No.’s 344 and 345)

Motion made 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 (13 to 2)

8.4.17   (4.2) 1067, 1069 and 1071 Wellington Road (OZ-9263 / Z-9264) (Relates to Bill No’s. 342 and 354)

Motion made by S. Lehman

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 (10 to 5)

8.5   10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-08-23 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 10th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 7 (3.2) and 8 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

8.5.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on July 28, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 4, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Information Report on Line of Sight for the Emergency Communications System

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the staff report dated August 23, 2022, with respect to information on Line of Sight for the Emergency Communications System, BE RECEIVED. (2022-P16)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.4) Occupant Noise Enforcement - Pilot Project

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the staff report dated August 23, 2022, with respect to an Occupant Noise Enforcement Pilot Project, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Temme, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-P01)

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (3.1) Adult Live Entertainment Parlour - Relocation Request (from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, related to an application made under the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16 (the By-law) to substitute an existing Adult Live Entertainment Parlour location at 2010 Dundas Street to a proposed new location at 238 Dundas Street:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the request to transfer the adult entertainment license from 2010 Dundas Street to 238 Dundas Street BE DENIED; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the necessary steps to allow Municipal Council to consider the deletion of the license from 2010 Dundas Street and hold a public participation meeting at the October 4, 2022 Community and Protective Services Committee meeting with respect to this matter;

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

  •    C. Pugh Roberts;

  •    T. Gray;

  •    M. Post, Attic Books;

  •    E. Moriarty;

  •    S. Chodis;

  •    J. Bancroft-Snell;

  •    E. Tony;

  •    O. Pizyo;

  •    D. Stambler – see attached;

  •    K. Morris, London Abused Women’s Centre; and,

  •    K. McCandles;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from H. Minogue, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.2) Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Parlour - Relocation Request (from 802 Exeter Road to 232 Dundas Street)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

The following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 23, 2022, related to an application made under the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16 to substitute an existing Adult Entertainment Body-rub Parlour location at 802 Exeter Road to a proposed new location at 232 Dundas Street,

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the request to transfer the adult entertainment body-rub parlour license from 802 Exeter Road to 232 Dundas Street BE DENIED;

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

  •    S. Keyes, representing the applicant;

  •    S. Centen, Ambiance Spa;

  •    S. Chodis;

  •    E. Moriarty;

  •    M. Post, Attic Books;

  •    J. Bancroft-Snell;

  •    D. Slansky, Ambiance Spa;

  •    J. Bolschetschenko, Ambiance Spa;

  •    S. Komaromi;

  •    M. Williams;

  •    O. Pizyo;

  •    D. Stambler – see attached;

  •    K. Morris, London Abused Women’s Centre;

  •    K. McCandles; and,

  •    E. Tony;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from H. Minogue, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.5.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at August 15, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That item #1 of the Deferred Matters List, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the balance of the Deferred Matters List BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   12th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lehman

YOUR COUNCIL IN CLOSED SESSION REPORTS:

  1.    That progress was made with respect to items 4.1 to 4.3, as noted on the public agenda;

  2.    That progress was made with respect to Item 4.4, a matter pertaining to Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice, as noted on the public agenda; and,

  3.    That progress was made with respect to Item 4.5, a matter, as noted on the public agenda pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, 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 (14 to 0)

At 6:06 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor M. Cassidy enquires with respect to the annual display of First Nations flags in City Hall with respect to recognition of the anniversary of the London Township Treaty.  The City Clerk advised that, in accordance with the Flags at City Hall Council Policy, all of the First Nations were contacted in August to invite that their flags be displayed at City Hall on September 7, 2022.

Councillor M. Cassidy further enquires as to whether there will be additional recognition of the event in the future.  The City Manager advises that this matter will be a part of a future report related to steps and actions of Truth and Reconciliation.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

At 6:10 PM, Councillor S. Lewis leaves the meeting.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 335 to 353, and exclusive of Bill No.’s 339, 342 and 354 and including the revised Bill No. 352, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

At 6:13 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen returns to the meeting.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 335 to 353, and exclusive of Bill No.’s 339, 342 and 354 and including the revised Bill No. 352, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. van Holst

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 335 to 353, and exclusive of Bill No.’s 339, 342 and 354, and including the revised Bill No. 352, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 6:15 PM, Councillor S. Lewis returns to the meeting.

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No. 339, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Second Reading of the Bill No. 339, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No. 339, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of the Bill No.’s 342 and 354, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by M. Hamou

That Second Reading of the Bill No.’s 342 and 354, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Third Reading and Enactment of the Bill No.’s 342 and 354, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

The following are enacted as By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill No. 335

By-law No. A.-8295-240 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 6th day of September, 2022. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 336

By-law No. E.-191-241 - A by-law to establish the 2022 Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee in accordance with Section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended. (2.2a/12/CSC)

Bill No. 337

By-law No. E.-192-242 - A by-law to approve the appointments to the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee for the 2022 Municipal Election in accordance with Section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, as amended. (2.2b/12/CSC)

Bill No. 338

By-law No. A.-7562(d)-243 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7562-160, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal and replace By-law A.-7015-285, being The Grants for Sump Pump, Sewage Ejector and Storm Drain Connection Grant Program By-law” by deleting Schedule “A” to the By-law and by replacing it with a new Schedule “A” to clarify language and terminology within the By-law and revise the funding upset limits to account for inflation. (2.3/11/CWC)

Bill No. 339

By-law No. A.-8290(a)-244 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-8290-227, a bylaw to impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax and to repeal By-law No. A.-7753-259, as amended, entitled, “A bylaw to impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax.” (2.2/12/SPPC)

Bill No. 340

By-law No. C.P.-1512(br)-245 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 604 Beaverbrook Avenue. (3.7a/14/PEC)

Bill No. 341

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bs)-246 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue. (3.10a/14/PEC)

Bill No. 342

By-law No. C.P.-1512(bt)-247 - A by-law to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 1067, 1069, 1071 Wellington Road. (4.2/14/PEC)

Bill No. 343

By-law No. L.S.P.-3501-248 - A by-law to designate 6092 Pack Road to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (2.5/12/PEC)

Bill No. 344

By-law No. L.S.P.-3502-249 - A by-law to designate 197 Ann Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (4.1c/14/PEC)

Bill No. 345

By-law No. L.S.P.-3503-250 - A by-law to designate 183 Ann Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (4.1d/14/PEC)

Bill No. 346

By-law No. PS-114-22004 - A by-law to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.1/11/CWC)

Bill No.347

By-law No. Z.-1-223051 - A bylaw to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone lands located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road. (3.2a/14/PEC)

Bill No. 348

By-law No. Z.-1-223052 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East. (3.5/14/PEC)

Bill No. 349

By-law No. Z.-1-223053 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located 4519, 4535 & 4557 Colonel Talbot Road. (3.6/14/PEC)

Bill No. 350

By-law No. Z.-1-223054 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at Beaverbrook Avenue. (3.7b/14/PEC)

Bill No. 351

By-law No. Z.-1-223055 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 712 Base Line Road East. (3.8/14/PEC)

Bill No. 352

By-law No. Z.-1-223056 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1737 Richmond Street. (3.9/14/PEC)

Bill No. 353

By-law No. Z.-1-223057 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 21-41 Meadowlily Road North and 20 Norlan Avenue. (3.10b/14/PEC)

Bill No. 354

By-law No. Z.-1-223058 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1067, 1069, 1071 Wellington Road. (4.2/14/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Turner

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourns at 6:22 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 29 minutes)

[21:50] Good afternoon, the mayor has asked that screens be on. Please be seated.

[22:56] I’ll just ask the clerk to confirm quorum, please. Your worship, you do have quorum. This is our practice. Do we have anyone that is not either zoomed in or present? Your worship, I understand Councillor Turner will be joining a bit later in the meeting. Thanks very much. Welcome to the 12th meeting of city council as this firm slowly gradually comes to an end. This is our custom, we are going to start with the land acknowledgement.

[23:29] I’d like to call on Councillor Jesse Helmer, please. You, we acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Leni Paywook, and the Adawandaan peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two Rowampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds, from the Haudenosaunee Nan Pan Treaty 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the Lemon Township Treaty of 1796.

[24:15] You hear on track treaty of 1827, the Anishinaabek, and the dish with one spoon covenant Wampum of the Anishabek and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chibwas of the Thames First Nation, the United Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations, individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Thank you, Councillor Halmer.

[24:48] Before I ask our guest singer to join us in O Canada and lead us in O Canada, I’d like to tell you all a little bit about Jage Hooligan. Jage Hooligan’s music journey started at the age of eight when he first took an interest into beatboxing and rapping, something they never asked me to do. Growing up in a family of musicians, he would embrace these passions on a much deeper level and begin to teach himself how to play different instruments. Developing his own personal sound, he often incorporates reggae dance hall elements with a strong hip hop foundation, putting his Caribbean roots on proud display.

[25:25] His visceral lyricism cuts deep with discussions of spirituality and self-love. While his soul stirring harmonies, possess an underlying gospel element, bleeds with passion and pain. For Jage Hooligan, the goal of his music is to inspire and motivate those around him. So, ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome Jage Hooligan at this time to come forward and lead us as we all sing O Canada. If you would, please Jage. (singing in foreign language) ♪ Stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ By last and free ♪ ♪ Canada, we stand on guard ♪ ♪ For we stand on guard ♪ Hooligan, ladies and gentlemen.

[28:01] So, I was talking to Jage and I asked him when he last sang the National Anthem. He said 2019 in a public forum. Doesn’t that say an awful lot about how we’ve all worked through the pandemic so much? Colleagues, I’ll look for any disclosures if I could please of your interest. Councillor earlier. Yes, on CAPS, 5.1 deferred matters list on number one festival regulations my family professors on in the park. Thanks very much, any other declarations?

[28:43] I see no other declarations. Colleagues, in our agenda, we have several recognitions and this will compel me to move to the, to the front of the class as it were. So, allow me to do that, please. I think Frank Sinatra started his career this way but I’m not certain exactly.

[29:35] Colleagues, one of the things that we acknowledged in a recent meeting was that we were going to be honoring some pretty tremendous people. People who took academics in their high school so seriously, much like how we treat council, but they took academics to the highest level and I’m so proud of them. And I’d like to share with you the names of the 2022 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship recipients. This is a very impressive list and I know that one of the recipients page, Evoy Smith is joined as via Zoom.

[30:20] The other candidates are not in attendance but they are aware of our event and are very grateful for the support that we have provided with to them. So, let’s go right through this ‘cause I think this is always a fun thing to do. First with a 99.17% average. From London Secondary School, Central Secondary School, we have Mr. Richard Ding from AB Lucas Secondary School with a 99.00 average. We have Paige, Evoy Smith, high page.

[30:59] She’s busy studying. Richard Ding from London Central Secondary School ended up with a, pardon me. Ballerina Liang from London Central Secondary School finished with a 99.0 average. And Nicholas Seglini-X from Saunders Secondary School also with a 99.0 average. And John Matty from Regina Mundy Catholic College with a 99.0 average. That is crazy.

[31:32] But we are so proud of all of them. And ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, let’s give them a show of our acknowledgement of their great efforts. So Paige, I would never put you on the spot but if you had 30 seconds to say something really nice, what would you say? Yeah, I’m sorry, you’re breaking up there for some reason. I’m not sure if that’s just coming out of static. You wanna try again?

[32:08] I understand Donald Duck better than that rendition. I think that’s a challenge of the internet. But can I then just say, Paige, you and I’ve met before and I know your family and I just wanna congratulate you as we do all of the other recipients of the Queen Elizabeth scholarship. And we’re just so very, very proud of you. Congratulations again.

[32:41] Paige, Richard, Ballerina, Nicholas and John. Once again, a great big hand for those folks. Thank you, Paige. Now, one of the things that we also get to do, and it’s this time of year, is we get to acknowledge our 25-year employees. This is huge, and so we had a great reception prior to our council meeting tonight, and a number of our recipients were able to attend. I think the rest are back at their desks.

[33:15] It’s really impressive list of recipients of the 25-year service awards, and we are just honored to acknowledge these people. And what we’re gonna do is I’m gonna ask our city manager to come forward, and we’re going for those who are present, and we are going to take a picture by area, or by department, with the city manager, and the deputy city manager, and will stuff me, and more importantly, the recipients in the middle between us. They will be between us.

[33:48] So with that, I’m going to call on the clerk, please, to announce our recipients in the appropriate order, but first by calling up the appropriate manager, and in this case, deputy city manager, by department, and we’ll get those pictures, and we’ve got a photographer set and ready to go. And if anyone from the gallery would like to take a picture, you can, as best you can through the looking glass, and I’ll leave it over to you, clerk, please. Certainly, Your Worship.

[34:20] First up is London Police Services, and for the police services, if deputy chief Bette could come forward, the recipient that I understand is in attendance is Cindy Mitchell. For London Police Services, those unfortunately unable to attend David Askew, Sergeant Sherry Balzer, and Donna Broidell.

[35:28] Next is enterprise supports, and if I could call on Jackie Davison, deputy city manager to come forward. First for enterprise supports is Lori Crothers. And I’d like to thank you. Congratulations.

[36:18] Next is Jennifer MacArthur. That concludes the recipients being honored for enterprise supports.

[37:08] Next is environment and infrastructure. And if I could call on deputy city manager, Kelly Sherry to come forward. Fortunately for this area, Stephen Pitt and Chris Webb are unable to attend. Finance support, so I’ll do it in a slightly different order. Those unable to attend, Kathy Galant, Stan LeBlanc, Dee Jeffrey Moody, and David Myall, and Annalisa Barbone, is deputy city manager for that area.

[37:56] Next is planning and economic development, and if I could call on Scott Mathers to come forward. In attendance is Erin Coser, unable to attend our June Ann Reed and Anna Serrano.

[38:53] For social and health development, I ask Kevin Dickens to come forward, deputy city manager. First recipient is Paula Barbosa. Next recipient is Amy Ruttinger.

[40:27] Next recipient is Adita Vergara. And unable to attend this evening, Elma Bravo, Laura Lee Brown, Steve Coglin, Suzanne Haycock, Christine Mills, Anna Lita Pace, Rina Singh, Janice Thompson, and Karen Webb.

[41:42] And today is what you create. You know that tomorrow’s number seventh marks the inheritance day for us Ontario, and we are so honored to be joined this afternoon by members of the Ukrainian Denise Chris London branch. I’d like to invite him right now to the podium, because we’d like you please to come forward. I’d like to add just a little bit more. Yes, please come forward.

[42:24] So something we’d like to say, and then if you’d like to say something we were honored as well, we so admire Ukraine and deeply admire the Ukrainian people. And we are reminded of this on a daily basis by Ukrainians of all ages and backgrounds, whose acts of valor and sacrifice are not for a time, but for the ages. This fierce and unwavering commitment to freedom and independence has not only ensured Ukrainian independence will continue to be celebrated in perpetuity.

[43:05] It has inspired people from all free and sovereign nations around the world. But what it means truly to value, to embrace and cherish our own independence. And we promise you this. We stand with you today, and we stand with you for all time. We pray for peace, and we pray for the people of Ukraine. Slava, Ukrainian, glory to Ukraine. And I’d like to offer you to say a few words please. Thank you, Your Worship, Mr. Mayor, for such a kind and compassionate words.

[43:43] I would just briefly introduce ourselves. I’m Ola Novosand, and this is Daria Retskyu, and Stefan Andrushak. We are, as the mayor said, members of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, London branch. And we are very grateful for the opportunity to come here on the eve of Ukrainian Heritage Day in Ontario. We would like to thank the city of London for your acknowledgement of this important event for Ukrainians in Ontario.

[44:16] At this time, we would also like to thank you for your warm and compassionate welcome to those people fleeing the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Many have commented to us how much they value that hospitality and warm welcome, and that they feel very at home here. Some will make their home here maybe for longer than a year or two, and some will probably return hopefully to a peace situation in Ukraine. And lastly, I would like to thank the members of this council, his Worship, Mr. Holder, for your ongoing support for over long, long years to the London Ukrainian community.

[45:00] We value your support, and thank you very much. Thank you. (audience applauding) Mr. Mayor Daria Ritsky, as you know, is the president of the Ukrainian Congress, London branch, and she would like to present to you and city council with flowers as our thank you for everything that Londoners are doing for Ukrainians who now find themselves in this terrible dire situation, and for your ongoing support, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[45:50] You will always support Ukrainian community. You was, I know you a long time, you know, and you always was in Ukrainian center, with Ukrainian community. Thank you for your support. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. Deputy, everybody, thank you. Mr. Mayor, your members of the city council. September 7th is Ukrainian Heritage Day in Ontario, as proclaimed by the Ukrainian Heritage Day Act. September 7th of 1891 was actually the date on which Vasil Elinyak and Ivan Pelipu landed on the shores of Canada.

[46:32] Now, there may have been one or two or 10 Ukrainians who filtered through during the gold rush or before that, but these were the first officially acknowledged immigrants, and after them followed hundreds of thousands and look at where we are today. So many coming to Canada, so many coming to London and the wonderful reception we have here. Across Ontario and around the world, in state capitals and in front of municipal buildings, the blue over yellow Ukrainian flag has been flying since the day that Russia violated the borders of Ukraine six months ago.

[47:11] And indeed, we thank you and we know that you broke with your own practice in flying the Ukrainian colors in front of City Hall on February the 22nd. I think it was. We truly appreciate this. I hope that September 7th, Ukrainian Heritage Day, 2023, we will be able to gather that we will be invader-free, COVID-free, and that we will be able to fly the Ukrainian flag. And I pray for that matter, flags of every color of the rainbow from our wonderfully diverse communities across London.

[48:00] This is my personal prayer, and I thank you. Thank you for your time very much. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s please acknowledge our guests from our own London Ukrainian community. God bless you all. Slovio Keni. Thank you. Please, we have one final recognition if we could please, and we’ll carry on with the balance of city business as well.

[48:56] I think we are all absolutely aware of the tragedy that has impacted the province of Saskatchewan over this last few days. Earlier today, colleagues, I requested that the Canadian flag outside of London City Hall be lowered for a period of three days in remembrance of those who were killed over the weekend, following a series of stabbings in Weldon, Saskatchewan, and the James Smith Cree Nation. What’s happened is beyond tragic, and really there aren’t words.

[49:34] Our hearts go to the families and loved ones of the deceased, and of course, we pray for those still in hospital. I put a call into my friend, the mayor of Regina, and to the member of Parliament for Prince Albert to extend the sympathies for those families and all citizens of Saskatchewan who’ve been so deeply impacted as have all Canadians. So I would like to ask us, please, to stand for a moment of silence in honor of those who have lost their lives in these attacks. Thank you very much.

[50:58] I am not aware colleagues of any confidential matters that must be considered in public. However, we are now going to go into closed session. In a moment, I’ll ask the clerk to advise the community about the issues for which we will be in closed session. And that will take us a moment to adjust our cameras and the like, but I’ll look, please, with cameras on. For a mover, I do want to close session. Councillor Helmer, second by. So I’m gonna have a specific other than moving the motion.

[51:39] I’ve recognized Councillor, oh, Councillor Helmer, you’re other than moving the motion. I’m happy to do both. I missed the declaration of beginner interest at the beginning. So for the 12th report of SBPC, item 2.2, municipal accommodation tax report and then related by-law bill number 339. Thanks for just saying this before. Thanks very much. And we’ll acknowledge you as moving, not going into confidential session, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Thanks very much. We will, before we call the question, I will ask the clerk to advise a public on the issues we’re dealing with, please.

[52:14] Your worship, the matters of the dealt within closed session are five matters that are outlined on the public council agenda. There are three matters related to the proposed or pending acquisition of land, along with solicitor of client privileged and related advice, a matter related to solicitor of client advice, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the city. And finally, a matter subject to solicitor of client privilege advice related to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal before the Ontario land tribunal. And with that, we’ll call the question to the clerk.

[53:07] Councillor van Holes, Councillor Soleil. Your worship, I vote, yay. Thank you. Someone have the mic on now. Councillor Palosa, be a chance. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much.

[53:38] We now move into a combination. Can I ask for screens on, please?

[56:32] And your worship, you do have a quorum. Thanks very much. With that, we resume council. We have the, we’re looking for a motion to approve the minutes for the meeting held on August 2nd, 2022. For that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Fyff, Miller, seconded by Councillor Hamou. Thank you very much, any discussion? Let’s call the question. Councillor van Holes.

[57:29] Marking that as a yay. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much. Under communications, there are four items in this section. They can all be dealt with in one motion, but first I’d like to share with you what they involve. They involve 6.1, which deals with 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Boschwick Road with a letter from New York developments. 6.2, 712 baseline Road East.

[58:04] And that’s from the planner for Westall developments. 6.3, 1737 Richmond Street. And that is from Esfrasano. We have for Westall developments. And finally, 183 and 197 Ann Street. And we have three communications. One from H. Elmsley, one from M. Coles, and one from A.M. Velastro. So with that, to move those to the appropriate sections for which they are to be considered, I’d look for a motion to do so, please. Councillor van Merebergen, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any comments or questions about that?

[58:42] Then let’s call the vote, please. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. There are no has been given that, which then moves us directly into the reports.

[59:18] And for the 12th report of these strategic priorities and policy committee, I’ll call a different to Mayor Morgan, acknowledging that under item 2.2, Councillor Almehrer has declared an interest in that particular item. Deputy Mayor. Thank you and colleagues. We’ll recall this was about a 12 minute meeting. So I’ll deal with this hopefully efficiently. I’ll put one, two and three. So everything with the exception of the municipal accommodation tax item on the floor for council’s consideration. I think you mean one tune. One tune, four, yes. So noted, does anyone wish to have any of the other items voted on separately?

[1:00:13] Thing to add, I’m happy to move the motion. So noted, any comments or questions with items 1, 2, and or 4? I see none. So we will call the question. The turn in, goes in the vote.

[1:01:01] Motion carries 15 to zero. Deputy Mayor Morgan. Three, which is 2.2. The municipal accommodation tax item on the floor for consideration. Thank you, comments or questions? See none, we will call the question. Councillor Vanholst, goes in the vote.

[1:01:47] Motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Deputy Mayor, thank you very much. Less than 12 minutes, actually. Colleagues, 8.2 is the 12th report of the Corporate Service Committee. I’ll call on Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. And not to out-efficiency, the Deputy Mayor, but I believe this was an 11-minute meeting. All items were supported unanimously. I will note that item seven, the application for issuance of proclamation of wrong conviction day, the motion unanimously supported at committee was to receive and take no action.

[1:02:25] Thank you. Does anyone wish to have any of these items voted on separately? Any discussion? Anything we’ll call the question? Councillor Helmer, Councillor Vanholst, closing the vote.

[1:03:09] Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Lewis. That concludes the 12th. Thanks very much. Now for the 11th report of civic works, I’ll call on Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship. It’s a pleasure to put everything forward for the 11th report of civic works. I have not been given notice to pull anything separate. Thanks very much. Does anyone wish to have any item voted on separately? We see none back over to you, Councillor Palazzo. Thank you. Everything was unanimous vote at committee, some routine parking, by-law amendments, basement flooding grant program, information’s on the city website.

[1:03:50] For anyone interested, please do check it out. It’s a great program and it was an honor to welcome the London Transit Commission for their annual report and thanking the city councilors who serve on that committee for the work that they do that’s valuable to the community and recognizing the city clerk assigned to civic works, Audrey is leaving us for another opportunity and we wish her all well at civic works for her extending service to the city of London. Thank you. Any comments with respect to the 11th report of civic works from colleagues?

[1:04:25] Dean, no other? We will call the question. Opposed by the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. So before we move on to planning environment, it’s my sense because a sense of amount of discussion that happens at all our committees and the views that people share that that certainly allows this process to go through thoughtfully as well.

[1:05:00] So I thank you for that, colleagues for the 14th report, planning environment committee. I’ll turn to Councillor Hopkins, please. Yes, Your Worship, I’d like to put the 14th report of the planning and environment committee on the floor. I will be pulling 14. We do have an amendment sheet to the by-law and there was a split vote on 17. I have heard from no one to have anything else pulled. Then let’s ask the question. Does anyone wish to have any other item voted on separately, Councillors?

[1:05:42] Thank you, Worship. Item 16 was also a split vote. So if we can deal with that one separately as well. Noted. Anyway, any other items to colleagues wish I’ve dealt with separately? Would you Councillor Hopkins, please? Councillor Van Holst, I would never ignore you. Thank you, Worship. We did receive communications with respect to a number of these items. I don’t know, seven, 13, 14, and 16. And so if we could see that though, I think we’ve already pulled one or more of those.

[1:06:17] I believe, Councillor, that we voted to have those put into the appropriate areas on communications and petitions and I’ll turn your attention to item six where we moved and approved that those be put in which includes, I believe, those reports. I’m sorry, Worship, my intention was to pull the items that related to those communications, so. So are you, so I’d like you to be very specific then. Again, please help the chair here.

[1:06:52] This chair, not Councillor Hopkins. Which items do you wish to have pulled for a separate dealing? That haven’t already been? So I think those ones were seven, 13, 14, and 16. 14 and 16 have already been pulled, so you’d wish to have those dealt with separately because we can comment on them without having to pull them. I make your pleasure though. I would ask some questions of staff. So if we could just pull those, that wouldn’t be.

[1:07:26] That’s fine. So, Councillor Hopkins, that’s items seven, which is 3.2 and 13, which is 3.8 as well, to your list, please. Thank you, any other items, colleagues? Councillor Hopkins? Yes, Your Worship. So I will be pulling seven, 13, 14, 16, 17. I’ll be putting all other items on the floor.

[1:08:00] And if I can make a few comments going forward. We passed the witching hour. It was a long planning meeting and we received a number of consent items. I just want to bring Council’s attention to 2.3, which is the Byron gravel pit secondary plan. We received the update and there’ll be numerous public participation meetings going into the fall as well as in the first quarter of 2023. And then finally with the plan coming to planning and environment committee sometime in 2023.

[1:08:41] I do want to mention there were 10 public participation meetings as well, 3.1, which was the zoning by-law, the patio restrictions. We did refer that back to staff with the revised by-law, removing the seasonal patio restrictions time in section 418 of not more than three consecutive days and the 30-day limit and to provide the mechanisms by which the alcohol and gaming commission’s regulates capacity. I don’t have any other further comments other than just thanking the committee for their due diligence as well as staff.

[1:09:23] All right, does anyone have any other comments they wish to make with respect to the items other than those pulled? I see none. We will call the question on those specific items. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:10:04] Thank you, Councilor Hopkins. Yes, I’ll put numbers. Two, three, seven, zero, zero, Colonel Talbot Road and three, six, four, five, Boswick Road as well. That was a public participation meeting. It was pulled by Councilor Van Hulse. Thank you, any comments or questions? Councilor Van Hulse, please. We need to hear you.

[1:10:39] Thank you, worship. So I’m just looking at the communication from York developments. So I would hope to ask through you to staff just the, they’re looking for a modification with respect to the garages. And they said there’s some potential misinterpretations possible. And I wonder if staff could comment on that for us? Why don’t we start with Mr. Mathers?

[1:11:27] Through you, worship. The Magnolia is online and she’s gonna be able to provide you some. I’m sorry, you’re gonna have to speak much louder. In fact, you know what? I know we ask our council members to stand, but I think that it would be easier from a microphone standpoint. We’re not used to standing and talking. It would just be easier here, you please. Through you, worship, that would be great. Thank you. Heather McNeely is online. She’ll be able to provide some comments. Good, please. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Worship, the language is very explicit, despite what York is mentioning here. The intent is that neither the garage nor the, should extend beyond the main building or the porch.

[1:12:07] And this achieves the intent of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan. Again, it’s the intent to maintain the streets character for garage is not to protrude beyond into the front yard. And the language of the bylaw is explicit in that regard. Councilor Van Halst? Okay, well, thank you very much. And then the amendments that were proposed, what would the effect of that be with respect to our present guidelines?

[1:12:43] Ms. Mcgeeley. Through you, Mr. Worship, the language that’s being proposed actually would clarify whether it’s whichever is greater. And the intent is neither should be extending beyond, the garage should not be extending beyond. So to that language, we would suggest that it’s our opinion that the language not be changed and that would remain. Anything else, Councilor? That’s fine. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you very much. Councilor Hopkins, please.

[1:13:20] Your Worship, if I may, just as a point of personal privilege, apologize to the committee. This is my first time back in council for maybe a year. So I’m getting into the groove of the buttons, Madam Chair. I’m not sure it’s personal privilege, but better habits in the future. And we’ll all get there too, I think. Can’t thank you very much, Councilor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship, and thank you, Councillor. I know it takes a little bit of time to do things differently.

[1:13:53] And with that, I would like to put the recommendation on the floor. Thanks very much. Any other comments? Do we acknowledge on the floor? We will call the question. President Vogue, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:14:32] Councillor Hopkins. And with that, I next item that was pulled 13, 3.8. It was a public participation meeting for 712 baseline road east. It was also pulled by Councillor Van Halst. Thanks, comments or questions? Councillor Van Halst, the button is just to your right. You depress it, you’ll be great. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m thrilled to hear about this development.

[1:15:06] It’s right across from the hospital. It’s 16 stories. There’s gonna be many people looking to stay here. I see a couple of issues that were brought up here, and I wanted to ask about them. Of course, I see that the developers are looking for a similar number of, or should say, percentage of affordable units, as was put into the agreement for the Wellington and Bradley plan, which was passed recently.

[1:15:59] I also note there’s a number of design elements that were asking here that they said were not quite feasible and that they had some other proposals that were shared here in the communication. Now, my question is, what will— I don’t know that we can change the number of affordable units here in time for a by-law to be altered.

[1:16:41] And maybe I can ask if that just staff confirm that. Let’s staff confirm that, please, Mr. Mathers. Let’s— I’d rather hear from Ms. McNeely. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Worship, and through you, in terms of the timeline, there’s five— actually, there’s five applications before you tonight that have bonusable items. And it’s imperative that they be heard tonight as the provincial deadline lapses on September 18. So there’s no opportunity for any changes to the bonus provisions for any of these items before September 18.

[1:17:23] Having said that, there is a discrepancy with the— between what the applicant is proposing to what staff have recommended. And for all applications, we’ve used the 1989 official plan. The London plan does not have bonus provisions under the policy framework. Those were removed as part of the appeal process. So having said that, these applications were submitted under the 1989 plan. So the bonus provisions were reviewed under that policy framework. Thank you, under Mr. Mathers. Might you have anything else to add to that?

[1:17:57] Through you, Worship, we’ve been very consistent as far as our calculations for affordable units. So we would suggest that council proceed with what’s been recommended. Thank you, Councilor Vanholst. Thank you. And I do want to thank our staff. I had asked them to pair a list of the affordable units that we had agreed upon throughout this term. And it started out at maybe 25 years and 15%. But over the last couple years, I saw that it was largely the 50 years at 20%.

[1:18:35] My question, though, is now with respect to some of the other items. So what we’re dealing with today is a little bit different because it’s, what we’re receiving is not agreement between staff and the developers, but something different. And I want to know what, for some of these other items, like a functional forecourt, what would happen in the future if that, so how would those issues be worked out?

[1:19:14] Or will this have to be appealed for any change to be made with respect to those things? Mr. Mathers, through your worship, I’ll lean on Heather and me late, I guess. Ms. Binkley, please. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Worship, matters specific to the forecourt. That was a conversation at the Planning Environment Committee. That is something that is discretionary. The idea is to have the activation at the front of the building. And the staff had conveyed that through to the applicant regarding that specific matter.

[1:19:48] Any items that are identified as design elements, some have elevations, some have words that could be interpreted. And so the idea is if there’s, if they’re minor in nature, the approval authority can make those minor changes based on an interpretation. However, if there are major changes, it would involve a new zoning and by-law amendment application and they’d have to go through the whole process again. And there’s no opportunity for bonus at that time. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, thank you.

[1:20:22] So are you saying that because there’s no opportunity for bonus, none of those, none of those particular things could be changed. They would just have to come back with a new application altogether. And that would not include the extra height for the affordable housing units. Is that what would happen? Ms. McKeown. Pretty Mr. Worship, it would require a new application in its entirety or be reviewed under the new policies in its entirety under the London Plan as the other applications were under 1989 official plan and regard to the London Plan.

[1:21:03] Having said that, any opportunities for bonus thing goes away after September 18th. However, any requests for the upper maximum of the maximum height, they would be required to follow the evaluation criteria under the London Plan, which would be those mitigative measures that good planning and good design. Thank you, Councillor and host, good. Thank you, Worship. I’m satisfied with those questions and I think that that’s fine. And I will say, I think those, I had similar questions for the next item as well.

[1:21:45] And so we could move those two together if the chair would do. There’s a development on Richmond Street as well. Since I know you pulled that item, Councillor, can you just be very specific about the second item that you’re looking to combine? So that’s 13 and— That’s the pleasure of the chair. We’ll just check with Councillor Hopkins. Yes, 13 and 14. Councillor Hopkins, can you turn your mic off, please? Yes, Your Worship, thank you for acknowledging me.

[1:22:20] 14 was pulled, we do have a bylaw amendment on that. So it still has to be pulled. You could— So we’ll deal with 13 separately and 14 separately. That’s how we’ll do that, Councillor and host. Thank you, Worship. Thank you very much. Any other comments then with regard to that? And I think your point about the questions as answered by Ms. McNeely and Mr. Mathers will be consistent for some of these projects which I think is helpful. I see no other questions. So with that, let’s call the vote. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:23:24] Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. Moving on to number 14 was another public participation meeting for 1737 Richmond Street. I did pull that. We do have an amendment sheet and just for the public, the rationale behind the bylaw which we are amending is the prohibited uses sections under section 4.3.4 by zone and under the BDC-1 zone and accessory parking structures and added commercial parking structures were removed.

[1:24:03] Thank you very much. Are you moving the amendment then? I am. Do you have a seconder for that amendment? I see Councillor Lewis. Thanks very much. Any other comments or discussion with respect to the amendment? I see none. We will call the question on the amendment. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:24:44] So Councillor, you’re now going to deal with this amendment as amended or do you have a seconder? I see Councillor Cassidy, seconding. Deputy Mayor Morgan, you have a question. Yeah, I just want to say this is one that is in my ward. And although I don’t think the affordable units landed where the developer would have liked, I do want to commend the developer and staff at the start of this process on this development. There was a high level of interest from the public, lots of people engaging on it. By the time we got to the public participation meeting through the work of engaging with that community, both by our staff and the developer, there were very few people at any, I think who came to participate.

[1:25:21] So I think a lot of the resolutions on this development were resolved through some good community dialogue. I just wanted to recognize that. So noted, thank you, any other comments or questions? I see none. So we are now voting on this item as amended. We’ll call the question. I was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Rosha.

[1:25:55] Councillor Rosha, if we had two items for the direction, 4.1, which is 183 and 197 Anne Street. It is the proposed designation bylaws of the Ontario Heritage Act. Considerations of objections were dealt with and committee supported receiving the objection and reaffirming the designation of the buildings and supported bylaws being introduced. This was also considered by the Community Advisory Committee on Planning. We did have a split vote at committee.

[1:26:30] Thanks very much. Then let’s entertain any comments or questions colleagues may wish to have. We see none. So with that, we will call the question. Was in the vote motion carries 13 to two.

[1:27:14] Councillor Rosha. Yes, your worship, 4.2. This was a committee received for 10, 67, 10, 69 and 10, 71 Wellington Road. I did not support the direction of the committee and I will hand it over to Vice Chair, Councillor Lane. Councillor Lane. Thank you, I’ll put 4.2, number 17 on the floor. Comments or questions? I see none.

[1:27:45] We will call the question. I apologize, Councillor Turner, you are there. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I encourage you to defeat this and to bring these staff recommendation back. There’s a few things to keep in mind here. One, you just heard on two occasions. Just previous to this, we had similar requests from another developer to have the reduction in affordable housing done. When we spend policy, the expectation of most other businesses is that we are consistent in that and that we would do the same thing for them as we did for somebody else.

[1:28:31] The challenge to that is that it significantly erodes our policies, undermines our staff who are there to make sure that our policies are enforced and executed the way our policies were intended to be. I noticed in here, actually I’ll get back to that in a second, but with respect to the affordable housing, it’s a reduction of over 30 units. That represents about 10% of the total amount of units we’ve been able to acquire through financing over the past four years.

[1:29:13] That’s 10% and we’re just kind of writing it off as if it was like an error on the balance sheet someplace. That 30 odd units is around the same amount of units that we have in an affordable housing purpose built, affordable housing building. That costs the city tens of millions of dollars to build and we’re just writing that off again. It is clearly in our policies and Miss McNeil is quite well articulated why those policies are in place, how they’re interpreted and how they’re executed.

[1:29:52] I don’t really understand why we would bend on this. The direction of this council has been really clear all along that affordable housing is its number one priority and this is a sizable amount of affordable housing to just walk away from. I know there’s been concerns that the developer would fold up stakes and not develop. And you don’t get to this stage in the process without being serious about developing.

[1:30:26] The amount of land acquisition, assembly of the parcel to be able to do something like this is sizable, the amount of investment in architecture, performance, planning reports to be able to get in front of council is sizable. You don’t get here just with the intent to say, eh, I’m not gonna do it. And it’s really not the role of council to be negotiating on these things. So at one of the meetings, I said, all right, if there’s something that might be in line with our policies, it might be parking because that same council meeting that we had the discussion, we talked about us being on a rapid transit corridor and that that might be a place where we might apply the new policy that we just did in terms of parking.

[1:31:17] But that wasn’t in the direction at the last council meeting in the referral, yet somehow that appeared in the motion that came to the planning committee last week, two weeks ago. So if I might, through your worship, I, on the last council meeting, the referral did not include a reduction of parking to 0.4 units or 0.4 spaces per unit when it was originally one space per unit. How did that get incorporated in? Are you asking us a question to staff, Councillor?

[1:31:54] Let’s turn that back to staff, please. I’ll ask Ms. McNeely, please. Sorry, Mr. Worship, could you have the question repeated? Tightly, I’m sure it can be. Go ahead, Councillor Turner, please. Yeah, thanks. At the last council meeting, the referral back to staff on making the amendment to the by-law was specifically focused on the reduction in affordable housing. In the by-law, the amended by-law that was presented to PAC at the last meeting, it included an addition to that reduction in affordable housing, also a reduction in required parking spaces from one point, one space per unit to 0.4 spaces per unit.

[1:32:39] That wasn’t in the referral, so I’m just curious how it found its way into the amended by-law that was presented to PAC last night. Ms. McNeely, have you got the question then? Thank you, and through you, Mr. Worship, the parking regulations were aligned more closely to the recent valuation that was completed through the parking standards. And so it was more apparent to clean up the paper work at this point, instead of dealing with it at a later stage, the process. Councillor Turner. Thanks.

[1:33:12] So, my point in this is that if there was a place for us to make a change, it would be there because we actually changed the policy and it created some alignment with it. And that creates a fairly significant margin increase for the developer, who was building and the recommendation came forward on the basis of 60% more. So this is a 60% reduction in parking. But on top of that, it’s a 50% reduction in affordable housing.

[1:33:46] These are two massive pieces that increase the margins for the developer. I’m arguing, and I hope you’ll follow with this to reject this, so that we can at least, I think it’s reasonable for us to maintain the reduction in parking because of that changing policy. And that gives the developer something that involves this. But the affordable housing component is so central to all the aligned strategies of 15 different members of council. I’m really surprised that you’d walk away from it.

[1:34:22] 30 seconds, Councillor. So to all of that, I think seriously, please, reflect seriously upon what we’re doing and how we accomplish it. And really, where the locus of control in development in the city should rest. Should it rest with us, with City Hall, or should we be passing bylaws that are being presented to us by applicants, which is just absurd. Again, hopefully you’ll reject this, bring forward back via the staff bylaw so that we can bring that affordable housing much needed affordable housing to life.

[1:35:03] Thanks very much, any other comments? Councillor Hummer, go ahead, please. I’m gonna be short and sweet. I think 50 years of affordability in terms of duration. But we’ve passed that now for many different developments as part of the bonus thing. And that’s a really important thing. The short-term affordability is obviously critical right now, but fast forward 50 years. I’m not sure how many of us are gonna be around to see what the affordability of housing is like then.

[1:35:39] But I certainly want it to be better than it is now and locking in affordability agreements that take us into 2072. It’s a lot different than just locking it in for 35 years. And I think it’s very obviously unfair to have some developers at 35 years and others at 50. And you can see from some of the other applications we just had in front of us, if you are saying, “Well, this is not fair.” So I’d like the lower one. And I’d like the lower number of units. So I think the calculations need to be fair and applied to all developers, regardless of the development that’s being proposed, I think 10% of the uplift calculated the same way for all these big developments at this one being the largest one and 50 years of affordability is the right thing to do.

[1:36:28] That’s one that gets us the most affordable housing for the longest period of time. And I don’t think we should lower the number of affordable units or shorten the duration of that affordability, which I think is actually the bigger and more consequential change. So this is a really great development proposal. This is exactly the kind of infill that we want to see happening in the city, this kind of intensity along this kind of corridor. It’s also extremely lucrative thing to do. And I don’t think we should miss that. If anybody can afford to provide a little bit of affordable housing, if people building this development, which is mass, and it’s a small number of units in a very big development.

[1:37:12] And if we can’t have 10% of the uplift provided as affordable housing in this, how can we do it anywhere else? How do the economics of that make sense, right? It’s because they do make sense. Sure, it puts pressure on the margins, but the margins are there and they can handle it. There’s a huge economy of scale building at this kind of size. And I certainly don’t think we should be giving a discount or cutting the old that’s lower for the biggest of the developments we’ve seen. Imagine that we did something similar to the development that’s coming along the East Link rapid transit, right?

[1:37:45] Which could be in the neighborhood of 6,000 units all to similarly on a rapid transit corridor. The difference if we were to apply this kind of calculation compared to the calculation we just applied to all those other developments would be very significant in terms of the number of affordable units. And they certainly will be asking for 35 years and fewer units calculated differently if we’re allowed this one to proceed. So I think we need to be fair to all the applicants. We need to try to maximize the number of affordable units and especially the duration of those units. So I’m going to go against it, even though 95% of this proposal is very good.

[1:38:22] I think the last bit about the affordable housing is just a showstopper for me, primarily because it’s unfair and results in fewer affordable units. Thank you, any other comments? Councillor Closer. Thank you, Your Worship. I was speaking to this one as the Ward Councillor. And this has been back and forth behind the scenes for several years. There’s been the developer meetings with residents taking into consideration the concerns that they have brought forward of what, recognizing more things can be dealt with site plan, if approved.

[1:38:56] But this project has already been redesigned behind the scenes, moving a lot of the density from Montgomery Road that borders residential areas to the front of the property. For me, I’ll repeat points ‘cause other people have, so why not? We’re here anyways. This is a transit village. This is on the bus rapid transit corridor. I appreciate that fellow Councillors recognize that this will revitalize the area. It’s the south line in the city, like other areas getting some of these developments. They have other buildings that are newer.

[1:39:30] This area hasn’t seen anything new in 30 years. Council of the last several councils laid out their vision of what BRT is gonna mean, where we wanna see intensification. And no one’s picked up our vision in the south end of the city. This is the first we’ve seen. So for me, it really is transformative. And Council has made other exceptions within the last couple of years of what they’re taking for affordability in terms of duration and percentages. So we already have made expectations. So that came from Mr. Warner himself.

[1:40:05] I’m sure you can speak to that if you want more information. I’m not familiar with, as some people have thrown out the words lucrative in their margins. For me, I’m not concerned about what the developers profit in margins gonna be on these residents seem pleased that they’re not gonna be owned. They’re gonna be rentals. It’s gonna help with affordability for everyone. Those who can’t jump right into the housing market. The students at Fanshawe come into the south campus who are interested in something there. To me, it’s not just about the affordable units.

[1:40:42] And I do appreciate the developers have come back and offered the three bedroom units, as well as a higher percentage, which will give more people access to housing. But overall, it’s the 1,272 units of housing that we desperately need and part of that missing middle. These are complete units. I’m told there’s gonna be washer and dryers in suite. It’s gonna be a great alternative to homeownership and people looking for this type of development in the south end of the city. We just haven’t seen it like other ends of the city.

[1:41:17] I know the north ends pushing up around their urban growth boundary. And this area of the city really is looking for that buy-in and that’s where I am giving some credit for the developers who have bought in with her development and are believing in our vision being the first to come to this end of the city and build that the BRT is gonna keep going ahead as we planned, that there is gonna be transit connections to other regional partners that we’ve been hoping for. And that this area of the city, I am biased as the word counselor, but it’s wonderful.

[1:41:49] There’s green space in White Oaks Park, right across the street by Fanshawe. There’s the South London Community Center, New Commerce Settlement Services. It is such a warm and welcoming community. And it really is a complete neighborhood that we spoke to and with groceries nearby as well. And for me, I have not received any, in case anyone talking about lucrative in profit, like I have not received any contributions in the past or currently from these developers. It really is believing just in our vision for the city and these developers being local, stepping up and saying, we’ll try three bedroom units.

[1:42:26] I know personally that’s a lower profit margin for them. We’ll do some affordable housing. We’ll give some more three bedrooms and they’ll take a chance on what our vision is in the South End. For me, it is transformative and given them extra credit because nobody else right now is stepping up in the South End, like they are. If they’ll actually pull their application and do commercial, I don’t know, I’m hearing rumors. So for me, I’m overall concerned about losing 1,272 places for learners to put their head and sleep at night and safety. Thank you, any other comments?

[1:43:00] I have Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll try not to repeat what other people have said. I agree, this is a transformative project. I agree that it’s exactly what’s needed in this location. And I wanna agree with some of the comments that Councillor Turner made specifically about doing negotiations on the committee floor. And I was actually willing, as a Councillor, to accept many of the compromises that the developers were looking for.

[1:43:35] Things like the floor plate of the towers and city staff were insisting a certain kind of skinnier tower, those kinds of things, the parking. Those are the kinds of things that I think we could have easily referred back to staff and ask them to work with the developers on those kinds of things. But I agree with the Councillors who have spoken that the affordable housing is not a place where I was willing to negotiate or where I was willing to compromise. And I had a couple of meetings with a representative from Drulo.

[1:44:10] And I let her know, I was standing firm on the affordable housing part. The fact that they have done this formula and so they’re presenting these number of bedrooms and some of them will be three bedroom units that will be now in the affordable range. The overwhelming need for affordable housing is in single units. So you can spread it out and say, we’ve got just as many bedrooms, but now they’re in three bedroom units. The people that are looking for affordable housing are generally singles, not families. There are families, absolutely for sure.

[1:44:46] But we have an affordable housing crisis and building upscale units in a beautiful transformative project doesn’t lead to that trickle down effect that people sometimes talk about. So nobody’s going to leave their affordable unit and upgrade to one of these nice, beautiful brand new units in this location and thereby free up an affordable space in another part of the city. The other thing is, I do agree that two of the developers involved in this project are two of the most successful developers, not only in London, but across Canada.

[1:45:27] This is a transformative project for them, not just for the city of London. And sometimes we have to hold their feet to the fire. That’s our job. If we have an affordable housing crisis, like we keep saying we do, then we have to put our policy where our mouth is and we have to stick to our policies when it comes to something that’s as important as this. I recognize that sometimes we compromise on our policies, we amend them, we change them, when the situation calls for it, when it comes to affordable housing, we no longer have that luxury to water down our policies.

[1:46:10] Thank you, our next councilor. Thank you, Your Worship. Colleagues, I think the first thing that needs to be said here is we don’t just have an affordable housing crisis in London. We have a housing crisis period at all points. I’ll refer to you to an article in the London Free Press today. Uswar Mutaj, a senior analyst with the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In the article, it’s pointed out that two bedroom units in London reached a high of $2,060 a month, last month for rental.

[1:46:49] The rental prices are going up because the supply is not there. And this is a quote from him directly. It doesn’t seem to be enough, and he’s talking about the fact that our development permits, our billing permits, have been going quite strongly. But he says it’s still not enough to absorb the existing demand in what is Ontario’s fastest growing city. As long as there is not enough supply, rents will typically keep increasing. That’s in the Free Press today. That’s the reality. As long as we restrict supply, rental prices are going to go up no matter how many affordable unit agreements we sign.

[1:47:26] I pointed this out in committee too. It’s one thing to talk about the number of affordable units we’ve secured for 50 years at planning committee. That doesn’t mean those units have been built. In fact, some of those applications have gone back on the market. The property is up for sale because it’s no longer economically viable for the developer to develop the plan that was approved. I do not want to see that happen with this transformative development that’s proposed in Ward 12. I agree with what the Ward Council has said as well. There’s been a lot of work done behind the scenes already.

[1:48:02] I cannot say enough. The point that was made earlier, about September 18th, financing rules go away. We heard Councillor Halmer talk about the development at the East London Link. That 10% lift formula, and that’s an internal formula, by the way, it’s not a policy in the London plan. And the London plan is now in full force and effect. So we can talk about it as an internal formula that we’re using. It’s not policy. We keep saying it’s policy, but it is a practice that we have adopted. It is not policy in our official plan.

[1:48:36] In fact, in this planning committee report, we approved a development on Meadowlily Road North. And I’m going to read work directly from the report. The bonus zone shall be implemented through one or more agreements to facilitate the development of stack townhouse buildings at a maximum density of 91 units per hectare instead of 60 units per hectare. The bonus in provision was based on density, which is what the London plan speaks to, not the lift. So we have a couple of different formulas out there. And as Councillor Ploza has correctly pointed out, we’ve made exceptions even to the 89 official plan formula that we’ve used before.

[1:49:12] Because people have come forward and said, we will meet you part way. We’re going to offer a different mix of units. We’re not going to go 50 years, but we’ll go 25 years, but we’ll go 70% instead of 80% of market rent. There’s been a number of different exceptions. And I’ll tell you, I knocked on the door last week and I talked to a single mom of two who’s not sure where she’s going to go because the landlords put the house up for sale. We do need three bedroom units. Yes, there’s a huge demand for single units, but don’t fool yourselves into thinking that there’s not a demand for three bedroom family units out there too.

[1:49:46] There is. And one of the things that the developer has offered in this proposal is more three bedroom units than the mix in the buildings would justify. Because we’re changing the floor plate, they can keep those three bedrooms. If we pass the staff by-law, those three bedrooms go away. And we go back to the regular mix and we probably have the developer not move on this. They can probably submit a new plan for a 900 unit development in the future and not have to deliver nearly as many affordable units. In fact, if we use the density formula in the London plan, it’s only 37 units. So we’re not talking about 93 versus 65 here.

[1:50:23] We’re not talking about violating our policies. We’re talking about using an alternate formula that’s been brought forward and used in other places. And we’re talking about the difference potentially between 65 units with more three bedrooms than we would normally get. And potentially zero, maybe 37 at best if a new application comes forward in the future. 30 seconds, Councillor. Thank you, Your Worship. We are at the 11th hour and 59th minute. The development in East London is not going to have the same formula applied. And so just through you to wrap up, I’m gonna say to folks, support this.

[1:51:01] Yes, we have to make judgments on some of these things. That will continue to exist in the London plan under column one and column two proposals as well. That’s part of our job. We’re the only ones who can vary from what is in the official plan. Our staff cannot, but we can wait whether or not the community benefit is sufficient. And in this case, I say it is. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. And I’ve been listening very carefully here and really appreciate everyone’s comments. And I agree we are, this is the last minute almost to us as a city supporting and approving affordable housing units with these applications.

[1:51:49] And I agree, the word, Councillor, it is transformative. It’s a wonderful project. It’s great. I think we all agree. We all agree we need housing. To me, this is all about affordable housing units that we are letting go off. And it’s unfortunate that we’ve taken that responsibility for us to negotiate here tonight. And I am very disappointed that this last application for Bonusing, we are divided.

[1:52:26] When it comes to affordable housing units in our city, we shouldn’t be. I think we’ve always supported the importance of affordable housing, the more, the better. I’ve had many unit applications in my ward with affordable housing units. I didn’t feel that I should start negotiating for whatever reason. I respected staff’s process. Our policies are not perfect. There’s always room for flexibility, negotiations, but I personally want to stay removed from that.

[1:53:01] And I would encourage my colleagues here to support the original recommendation that came to us quite a while ago as we deal with affordable housing units in our city. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any more more? Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m going to support the Ward Council around this particular development. I think she’s made a good case for what’s needed in her part of the city and all the comments she made about supporting our vision for that area. I think Councillor Lewis has made some good points about the consistency and the different ways that we have approached affordable housing across the city and I want to say for me, I think there’s a lot of speculation if you want to make on whether the developer is going to make a lot of money on this, whether they’re going to build it, whether they’re not going to build it, what we know is that they have access to capital and they have lots of options where to deploy that.

[1:53:59] I think everything about whether they’re going to build it or not is probably speculative. What we do know is what they’ve communicated clearly is that they will build this particular development that is in front of us, which is plus 65 units. So we can talk about whether or not it’s minus 30, but what it actually is is plus 65. And I’ll be frank on those 65 units, like Councillor Lewis said, with the way that rents have gone in the city, we’re having a lot of debate about a lot of affordable units that are simply still out of the reach of many Londoners.

[1:54:37] 15, 20, 25% discount on rent is still out of the reach for many Londoners. And I’m going to take the ones that we can get in this, but I think we have to turn our focus to filling what Mr. Dickens described in a previous meeting as a portion of the market within the rental market that there’s just not spaces being created. After you move beyond RGI and supportive housing, you just can’t reach 15, 20, minus 25%. We’re missing that middle piece, and really that’s where we need to focus.

[1:55:11] So I’ll support this proposal today. I think we could talk a lot about whether we should have another 30 or another 20 or whatever. Let’s take what we can get and then turn our focus to the units that we really need in our city, those much more deeply affordable units that allow people to jump from RGI into an affordable place where they can get a home into these sorts of units, which are well beyond the reach of other Londoners, even at this slightly discounted rate. Thanks very much. We have any other speakers to this issue? Councilor Van Holst.

[1:55:44] Well, thank you, Your Worship. So now I’ll make a few comments. One, I do agree with the remarks made by some of our other councillors in terms of this not being fair. I know that others would like a change. I do see that in the past four years, there’s been about 16 that we have negotiated at 50 years and 80%. So I guess there’s a quite a strong precedent there.

[1:56:24] The earlier ones, in some cases, it’s I see 20 years at 10%. So there’s been some change in how things are going. The comment that the word councillor made that jumped out at me was that this was a developer coming forward to build our vision. And so I think we can afford an olive branch here for sure, there’s a massive, massive development.

[1:57:01] And as we point out, the 20% won’t make a difference for a lot of people. So it’s still a great deal. I don’t know what the margins are on this. I knew that I do know that if 20% of a 10% lift, that means it’s off. That means that’s 2% for the entire lift. So in this case, for 93 units, that’s a 2% less margin for 930.

[1:57:37] So we can see how that might be a concern. But I do believe that making sure that we get this one across the finish line is important. That’s 1,200 units that again provide spaces for people to reduce the demand in rents. It’s still an issue of supply and demand. So I do think that it would be a challenge to us as well to change this.

[1:58:17] We would lose the three bedroom apartments. And I do want to say that just yesterday, I stopped in to see a friend who rents a townhouse in my ward. And it’s a couple with a young boy. And I think they have two stories in a basement. I believe that’s two or three bedrooms in there. And the person who owns it called them up and said, I’m sorry, I have to sell.

[1:58:51] And because of his own situation, and what that means is they’re going to have to find rents on someplace else and their rent is extremely affordable. And they’re wondering whether they can stay in London at all. And so that’s the challenge we have. Now, what exactly will happen if we look for these extra 35 units? And again, it’s the glass is half full or is it half empty in terms of this?

[1:59:32] I mean, I was always a pessimist. I thought not only is the glass half empty, but now it’s dirty too. And I’ve got dishes to contend with. But in this case, I’m going to consider it to have full thank, thank them for the 65 units that are being proposed, the extra large units. And also 30 seconds concert. That 1200 and bringing the vision of the transit villages to life in a big way. So this is to life in almost larger than life with 1200 units.

[2:00:09] So I think that’s worth something. It’s perhaps 10 times bigger than most of the other developments that we’re looking at. Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you. Any other comments? I see none. Well, that we’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

[2:00:50] Motion carries 10 to five. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. That is my report. Thank you very much. The transport of the community and protective services committee, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ve been asked to pull number seven, which is 3.2 from the committee report. And number eight, there’s a conflict, which is 5.1 on the report. Can I ask if anyone wishes to vote separately on any of the other items, one through six. Two, Councillor Cassidy.

[2:01:23] Thank you, Your Worship. So we had a pretty quick meeting. We had advisory committee reports and also an interesting pilot project that is beginning as soon as, if this council chooses to give approval, as recommended by the committee, on the occupant noise enforcement, which will be municipal law enforcement officers responding to noise complaints. And this should help to free up some time from a London police service, allow them to get, well, allow them to continue to deal with those high priority calls that they are dealing with.

[2:02:00] The majority of calls that would take place at night for noise is when our municipal law enforcement officers tend to have more spare time. And they’re dealing with different kinds of complaints during the day. So this sort of seems like a really good win for use of time for municipal law enforcement officers as well. So I just wanted to highlight that. I also wanted to highlight item 3.1 on the committee report, which is six on the council agenda, the adult live entertainment parlor relocation request.

[2:02:39] The recommendation from committee is to deny that request and also further that the civic administration be directed to undertake necessary steps to allow municipal council to consider the deletion of the license from 2010 Dundas Street and hold a public participation meeting at the October 4th community and protective services committee meeting with respect to that matter. So I just wanted to highlight those things. With that, I’ll put the rest on the floor. Thank you. So on items one through six, anyone wish to have any comments or questions? Councillor Lewis.

[2:03:14] Thank you, Your Worship. I’m sure I’m not the only one who over the Labor Day long weekend had some concerns about noise bylaw infractions and nuisance parties. So I just want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Mathers and Mr. Catolic and their team for the work that went into bringing forward the pilot project. I hope we can very quickly move from pilot to permanently offloading this from London Police Services and having our municipal bylaw deal with noise complaints. I think it makes a lot of sense. They can bring in the police if needed, but not necessarily the police for every call.

[2:03:49] This is a good thing. And I did have a chance to meet with Mr. Mathers and Mr. Catolic about this when I had some concerns in my own ward. About three or four days before this item came forward on the agenda. So I was happy to hear it was coming and I’m very thrilled that the community has endorsed. It’s got my full support tonight and I just want to thank the staff for their work on this. I know it’s been a while coming, but I think it’s going to make a significant difference in terms of responsiveness in our neighborhoods. We know that our police forces can’t respond to a party complaint when they have all those other things on their plate.

[2:04:26] Our bylaw officers, however, can. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on items? Any items one through six? Councillor Turner. Your worship. I didn’t have the opportunity, unfortunately, to watch the debate and discussion about the entertainment license. I’m curious from the perspective of what was being requested and it didn’t sound like what was being requested was to have basically a strip bar in the sense of the word, but rather to be able to provide the opportunity for a burlesque show.

[2:05:05] Has there been any examination of creating some other class of license that one is not transferable, two doesn’t necessarily is with the owner of an establishment or a business rather than for a specific municipal address and looks towards something that might be a little different than what the traditional license or a permit might be through you to stand. Thank you. So this is a licensing question.

[2:05:37] We were directed to Mr. Mathers, please. Through you worship, that hasn’t been something that we’ve looked at in the past. And we would see council direction to do. So if that’s something council wants to pursue. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Thank you. Through you to Mr. Mathers, is it something that’s possible and it sounds like the way our bylaws have been set up have been fairly restrictive, but also just weird in their history. So I mean, if it’s possible, what are our restrictions on that and was that an option that was explored?

[2:06:18] It seems like the nightclub was looking for an opportunity to be able to expand their options, but that the only option that was presented to them was just the transference of that license where other things explored in pursuit of what their objectives were. Mr. Mathers. Through you worship, yes, we will use the existing bylaw to be able to provide them advice on how to move forward. So this was all that was available to them through that bylaw, through the current bylaw.

[2:06:51] If council would like to provide direction to us to look at changing the bylaw, that that is something that we could pursue. We’d have to do more investigation, but that would be the way forward if you want to look at those changes. Councilor, that’s your turn. Thank you. Sorry, I just had to get my mute button there. It sounds like something that might be reasonable, but it’s hard to do on the floor right now. That’s why I didn’t have it pulled separately. Perhaps this ends up being an offline conversation look for some options.

[2:07:25] I don’t see what was being requested as being a, I guess a strip bar in the sense of the word of what they were asking for. It seemed like something quite different. And it seemed like there might be some options, but it just was trying to fit a square peg in around hole. So it’s certainly worth some discussion to figure out. And I understand the apprehensions, concerns, the community. And I share those. I wouldn’t want to see a transfer of that license that I could be used in Perpetualn, but I think it sounds like there are some options that might be available for us.

[2:08:00] So perhaps we’ll look at that in a future day. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions with your respect to items one through six on the consent agenda? Seeing none, we will call the question. The vote motion carries 15 to zero. Mr. Cassey.

[2:08:33] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So number point two from the committee report was another application for a relocation. And this one was for an adult entertainment body rub parlor. The current address is 802 Exeter Road. And the request was to move it, to be able to transfer the license and move it to 232 Dundas Street. The recommendation from committee was to deny this request. However, there was not a unanimous vote here. And it was Councillor Helmer that asked me to pull this item. Thanks very much comments or questions.

[2:09:12] See none, let’s call the question. The vote motion carries 14 to one. Councillor Kiley. The next item is number eight, which is the deferred matters list. And Councillor Hillier has declared a conflict on the first item on the deferred matters list.

[2:09:51] So how do you wish to deal with this thing? Councillor Cassidy. So in the past, I’ve put the first item on the floor separately. So I’ll put that on the floor first. So I’m looking actually at the minutes and I’m looking at the second item that looks like the recuse was from Councillor Hillier. I just want to be clear on which we’re dealing with here because it looks like he supported the first that it be received and then, so I just want to clarify please, my understanding is correct.

[2:10:26] My understanding is that is item one on the deferred matters list, but I would look to the clerk for clarification. Clerk looks smarter than me and says yes, it is the first item. So with that, any other comments with respect to the first item? I see none. Councillor Hillier, this is your conflict or your declared interest. So with that, let’s call the question. Was in the vote motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[2:11:05] Councillor Cassidy. So I want items on the deferred matters list on the floor. Any comments or questions on this deferred matters list balance item? I see none, let’s call the question. Councillor Helmer, thank you.

[2:11:49] Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Cassidy. That’s my report. Well, while calling you please to report out on the 12th Board of Council and closed session, please. Absolutely, I will report that progress was made with respect to items 4.1 to 4.3 as noted on the public agenda. And that progress was made with respect to item 4.4, a matter pertaining to solicitor client privileged as advice as noted on the public agenda. And that progress was made with respect to item 4.5, a matter as noted on the public agenda pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege 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.

[2:12:38] I go look for a seconder, please, Councillor Lehman. Thanks very much, comments, questions. Then let’s call the vote. And I believe Councillor van Merbergh and as indicated, he had to leave momentarily.

[2:13:15] Close the vote 14 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Cadders, but we have an inquiry, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Your Worship. It may be for the clerks, it may be for the city manager. So as you all know, tomorrow will be the 226th anniversary of the signing of the London Township Treaty. This was the treaty between the Crown and Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Walpole Island First Nation, Caldwell First Nation, Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, and the Abjuinang or Sarnia First Nation.

[2:13:51] So in the past, the flags of the signatory nations were hung outside of the mayor’s office in the lobby there every September 7th in recognition of the signing of the treaty. So I’m wondering now that, you know, things where everything was sort of put on hold because of COVID, will this happen again tomorrow? And a future question perhaps for the city manager or the mayor or whoever happens to be on council next time. I was always hoping that something my little splashier would take place to honor this treaty because it really did lead to the founding of our city.

[2:14:33] As we say, the history of the First Nations in the area is also the history of us here in London. So for tomorrow specifically, and then in the future, I wonder if there are any plans to make this a bigger day for London. So Councillor Cassidy, before I turn this over to the clerk to answer, typically when we have any flags from one irrespective of its source, we would, as I understand, have a request formally. Has a request either through you or from the communities involved and made to the city of London to the extent we might be aware?

[2:15:07] This is a direction from city council that took place, I believe, in 2017. And so these flags have been on display outside the mayor’s office every September 7th since that direction. Thanks very much, Clerk Olasky, respond, please. Thank you, and through your worship, an invitation went out to five First Nations, August 5th from the city clerk’s office inviting the First Nations Abbots’ flag displayed on Wednesday, September 7th. Unfortunately, I do not have the evidence of all the responses, but we have received at least several of them that I am aware of, but I can confirm after the meeting.

[2:15:46] Councillor Cassidy, you’re good? Just wondering if the city manager has any thoughts on how we might recognize this day in perpetuity. Can I, I’m gonna call that question out of order right now if I can, respectfully, because I think we’re dealing with tomorrow. But I think the in perpetuity is a really big question. It’s a direction from council that this day would always be recognized. So in perpetuity, Ms. Livingston, do you have some thoughts around that that might be helpful? Hi, yes, through you, your worship.

[2:16:22] As you know, we are working to take many steps with respect to truth and reconciliation. This would be a very obvious step to take, and we have a dedicated staff person. We at the staff level are working on an action plan for truth and reconciliation that we will bring back to council in the next year. So I anticipate that council could expect to see something about a splashier recognition of September 7th as part of that plan. Thank you, Councillor.

[2:16:55] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you through you to Ms. Livingston for that response. Thank you very much. I’m not aware of any emergent motions, so let’s deal with the bylaws. If we can, please, colleagues, we have two sets of Councillor Hopkins. Yes, your worship, if we are dealing with bylaws, if you could pull bill number 354. Okay, can you, for the benefit of all of us and the public, can you just identify what 354 is, please? It is to rezone an area of land located at 1067, 1069, 1071, Wellington Road.

[2:17:31] So noted, thank you very much. Colleagues are ready to vote. We will have three then votes if that, Councillor Turner. Companion to that is bill 342, so if we could pull that as well. And again, for the benefit of the public and anyone else who is paying mind to that, which I know we all are, could you just identify what that bill is, please? Certainly, as mentioned, a companion to 354, but 342 is a bill to amend the Official Plan for the City of London relating to the 2016, of 2016 relating to 1067, 1069, and 1071, Wellington Road.

[2:18:06] I’m wondering if those two can be dealt with together if there’s some comfort in doing that. Are you all right with that Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Turner? I see a nod, so we will deal with 342 and 354 is one. Vote, we will be dealing with 335 through 353, exclusive of 342 as one, and then we will be dealing with bill 339. That’s another exclusion, which is the municipal accommodation tax. Are we good? So with that, let’s see how we can work this through.

[2:18:40] I’m looking for a mover and seconder for the introduction of first reading of bills, 335 through 354 with the exclusion of 332, sorry, 339, 342, and 354. I think I have that right clerk, good. So do I have a mover, please? I have Councillor Hamou, seconded by Councillor Unholz. Thank you very much, let’s call the vote. Well, Mark, Councillor Lewis has absent and closed the vote, the motion carries 13 to zero.

[2:20:03] Now I’m gonna be looking for a mover and seconder for second reading of bills 339 through 354, exclusive of bills 339, 342, and 354. Do I have a mover, please? I see Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Fyfe Miller in harmony, that’s very nice. Any comments or discussion, please? I see none with that, let’s call the question, please. The vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[2:20:51] And finally, I’m gonna look for a mover and seconder for an enactment of bills 335 through 354, exclusive of 339, 342, and 354. I’ll look for a mover, please. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Vanholz. Thank you very much, let’s call the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[2:21:52] And through the chair, Councillor Lewis has returned as Councillor Van Mirberg. Thanks very much, colleagues. We now have bill 339, dealing with the municipal accommodation tax for first reading an introduction of that bill. I will look for a mover and seconder. Moved by Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Thank you very much, let’s call the vote. Councillor Cassidy.

[2:22:53] I voted twice now, I think so, I’ll try it again. So we’re still on 335, this is third reading. 339, this is first reading. This is first reading? Bill 339, municipal accommodation tax. I think that’s what’s showing on mine. Councillor, you could vote verbally if there is an e-scribe issue. So for the municipal accommodation tax bylaw, I will vote yay.

[2:23:28] If you close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. So colleagues, a bill 339, I will look for a mover and seconder of Councillor Fyfe Miller, seconded by Councillor Palosa, any discussion? I see none with that, we will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[2:24:13] And finally, for the enactment of bill 339, I’m going to look please for a mover and a seconder moved by Councillor Cassidy, seconded by Councillor Layman. Thank you very much, let’s vote. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[2:24:49] Colleagues, and finally, we’re dealing with two bills, three, four, two, and three, five, four, which the mover and seconder have agreed to have together as one, I’m sorry, the individuals, I apologize that wanted them voted on separately, agreed that they can be voted on together. So with that, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder moved by Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Layman, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

[2:25:44] Thanks very much. And now I’ll be looking for bills three, four, two, and three, five, four, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hamou, thank you. Any discussion? I see none, we’ll call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

[2:26:24] And finally, third reading, the enactment of bills, three, four, two, and three, five, four, I’ll require a mover and a seconder, please move by Councillor Fai from the other. Seconded by Councillor Hiller, thank you. We’ll call the vote. Councillor Neill.

[2:27:08] Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Thanks for making through all that. Just before we adjourn, it’s been interesting in summer, but I would say that now with Labor Day, we can having just passed kids back at school. You know, as a grandparent, I’m gonna say please to anyone listening, watch out for our kids. There are most precious, precious jewels. We’ve got Homecoming coming forward with Western and we’ve got Fanshawe doing there.

[2:27:43] We have great celebrations as well and we have great expectations of having a strong positive return of students coming to our community. And they matter to us economically, they matter to us in terms of the vibrancy and the culture that they bring and we’re delighted that they’re here. In working with these various communities from Western to Fanshawe, to our schools, we’ve got a great staff that does that. And I’ve had the honor to be part of that over the last number of years where we’ve worked through that.

[2:28:16] We saw it when I mentioned at the SPPC meeting about our United Way supports. And as much as I was convinced to not pull a fire truck, which for good reason made sense, it was a lot of fun, but it was a great commitment to staff. I gave a shout out to Deputy City Manager Jackie Davison, but it was really a great team effort. And we had a lot of fun with that too. And who knew that city employees could have fun, but we do. And we do it in a thoughtful way and we do it because we care about this community, this greatest community in the greatest country in the world.

[2:28:50] And that’s London, Ontario. So I just want to say, thank you to staff for all that you do. You make us so darn proud. And colleagues, if there’s no other business for the good of this agenda meeting, I’ll look for a mover to shut us out. Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Turner, buy a show of hands. Can I see who would like to depart from this meeting? I’m curious. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.