Open Council

15th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

15th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

September 12, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   Building Division Monthly Report - July 2022

2022-09-12 Building Division Monthly Report - July 2022

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   4680 Wellington Road South (TZ-9509)

2022-09-12 Staff Report - 4680 Wellington Road South (TZ-9509)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 761030 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 4680 Wellington Road South, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated September 12, 2022 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 27, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), by extending the Temporary Use (T-74) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan and the Future Industrial Growth Designation policies;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan and the Open Space Designation policies; and,

  •    the recommended temporary use provides an appropriate interim land use until such time as the subject lands and surrounding area develop for their intended landuses. The recommended use is not intended to continue on a permanent basis.  (2022-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Public Participation Meeting - Not to be Heard before 4:00 PM - 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

2022-09-13 Staff Report - 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the application by York Developments, relating to the properties located at 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration for further discussions with the applicant to address the outstanding concerns and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee; it being noted that the referral is at the request of the applicant;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the staff presentation appended to the Added Agenda, 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:

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning, on behalf of the applicant.   (2022-)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2.a   (ADDED) Staff Presentation

2022-09-12 Presentation - 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2022-09-12 - DEFERRED MATTERS

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.   (2022-D19)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:38 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 (40 minutes)

[2:55] Welcome everyone to the 15th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. And before we get started, I would like to ask committee members, staff and the public in memory of Queen Elizabeth II to rise for a moment of silence as we go through the 10 day period of mourning. So with that, if we can all rise and have a moment of silence, thank you. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, Lupinette Wack and the Atawandran.

[3:59] We honor and respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

[4:47] Moving on to our agenda. Any disclosures of pecuniary interest? You see none. I’d like to now go to the consent items. We have one consent item, which is the Building Division Monthly Report for July. Councillor Lewis. I just want to move the receipt of that report. Madam Chair, so we can get that on the floor. Okay, and it looks like I have a secondary and Councillor Hellier.

[5:23] Any question, comments from committee members? I see none. If the committee will allow me, I do have a quick question to staff. It looks like we are working pretty hard getting these permits out the door and I would like to hear from staff how things are going. I know we’ve had increases and decreases in our report, but how are we managing with the number of permits and inspections?

[6:01] Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s Peter Kokoro speaking. Can I do an audio check first? Can you hear me? Sure can. Thank you. Okay, I see the thumbs up from Councillor Turner. Thanks so much. Thank you for the question and committee has heard me say before and I’ll say it again, that staff have been pushed to their limits. This is very true and still remains. And while we have recently filled vacancies, we’ve done so with staff that require a significant amount of training.

[6:36] Like other municipalities and other service areas I may add, there is a shortage of fully qualified candidate. We’re also competing with some smaller municipalities around us with respect to staff retention. And that also is a significant challenge for us. So there is an impact on resources that are needed to train the new staff. In other words, they’re not ready to hit the pavement, if you will, in terms of the workload. So as a result, we have experienced delays in permit issuance.

[7:13] More so I’d say in the mechanical and fire protection areas. And if I can also add, there are a few things that we’re working on to try to alleviate some of these issues. And one quick example is two years ago with the pandemic, we all resorted all municipalities in a all-exclusive electronic permit application system. So we haphazardly put something together. We had our building portal before we now have asked applicants to use a basically an email system to apply for their permits.

[7:50] And we are seeing a lot of applications come in incorrectly submitted. That takes time from staff in terms of administrative workload. We are recognizing that and acknowledging it that takes away staff’s time from actual plan reviews, which is what their focus should be. And with the help of our good friends in IT, we are now working on a second phase of our building portal, which will allow all types of permit applications to be submitted through that portal, which will have a set of questions asked to make sure that the applicant is well informed as to what documentation needs to be submitted.

[8:29] So we minimize this administrative process, if you will, of correcting things. So we’re working towards informing our applicants as to be a better informed applicant and submit the proper documentation. And one last item, if you will, Madam Chair, is through our industry stakeholders, we’re hoping that we can improve the permit application submissions by reaching out to their designers. And as a quick example is providing their designers with the exact same checklists that our plan examination staff are using so that there could be a little bit of check and balance done before an application is submitted.

[9:13] And when I say designers, I’m talking about the professionals out there that have applied for just more than one or two applications a year. So we have a few things in mind and some of them have been sort of implemented already, but it’s no secret, Madam Chair, that staff have been under a lot of strain. And we’re hoping with some of these changes that we can see some improvement. And I could say that there is light at the end of the tunnel. So I don’t wanna paint a gloom and doom picture, but we’re getting there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[9:46] Thank you, Mr. Kacors for the update. And I’m hoping that there is gonna be light at the end of the tape tunnel sooner than later and best wishes for making it all happen. Any other questions from committee members? I do wanna bring to your attention that the mayor will be joining us late. I see none. And with that, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[10:24] To the scheduled items 3.1 is a public participation meeting for 4, 680 Wellington Road South, looking to committee to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hillyer. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[11:01] A staff presentation on this one. I would just remind the committee this is a request for extending a temporary use for a period of three years. This is a golf driving range at 4,680 Wellington Road South. With that, I would like to maybe go to the applicant if the applicant is here. I’d see the applicant here.

[11:45] I’ll move on to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation, if they could come forward. Last one more time. If there’s anyone here from this public that would like to speak to this recommendation to please come forward here and see none. And so with that, I will go to committee to close the public participation meeting.

[12:22] Councillor Hillyer, seconded by Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll go to committee members for comments. Motion, Councillor Hillyer. Just a quick comment and motion. Yes, I’ve been here many times. It’s in my ward.

[12:53] My son and I both use this driving range. And I think for the space, it’s actually a nice placeholder. It’s a nice green space as a placeholder until this area gets developed. So I would like to put forth motion, the staff recommendation. I’m sorry, the staff recommendation. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman. Any further comments from committee members? Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair. I imagine the committee’s not surprised to hear my concerns associated with protracted temporary usage, so zoning.

[13:26] This has been in place for about 28 years now. And this will bring us to 31 by the end of this, which really brings into question of whether this is actually temporary. So my question for you, Madam Chair, to staff are alternatives that are available here where we look at either special provisions or expansion of zoning that permits the temporary use. I don’t see anything wrong with the use of a driving range. However, it seems that it would just be in our interest to having conformity with our policies.

[14:03] Maybe I can go to staff for alternatives. Through the chair, it’s like Corby here. I just want to clarify the question with the Councillor Turner. Were you seeking kind of a permanent zone as a recommendation to the golf range or were you seeking some kind of other zone? I just want to clarify what you’re asking. Madam Chair, thank you, Mr. Corby for the question. Just to clarify, I’m just wondering why we don’t look towards something that just permits the use rather than temporary zoning.

[14:40] So perhaps permanent, perhaps either through special provision or through actually amending the zoning. Why is this the pathway that we see so often? Mr. Corby. Through the chair, I think Greg, Mr. Barrett’s going to speak to this, thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. The question’s a good one, but we prefer the root of the temporary zone provisions because putting that use in place, in fact, would not necessarily be consistent with the policy of the Official Plan.

[15:25] The lands are within the urban growth boundary, but they’ve been identified for future industrial growth. And as was noted, this use seems to be a pretty good place holder. One of the issues and concerns on these lands for industrial development is their location immediately south of the Dingman, not wanting to presuppose what future decisions of council may be, but if these lands were to develop in the future, it may in fact be better to be developed in concert with additional lands either to the east or to the south if there were a future urban growth boundary expansion.

[16:02] They’re somewhat constrained by the way that the creek runs through. They were subject to the Southwest Area Plan, that hearing process. And there was a desire, in fact, that they’d be identified for industrial growth. And at that time, the city’s position, which I would suggest to you is not changed, is that given their location south of the Dingman and given their fragmented nature, they were better given that they had been identified within the urban growth boundary to be left in that holding category as future industrial growth.

[16:37] And that I think is the appropriate designation for them. And to put in that recreational use would likely require an official plan amendment. So rather than going down that route, the tool of the temporary zone is available to council to consider. Yes, it has been a long time, but there hasn’t been a change in urban growth boundary, which we’re not suggesting occur at this time, nor have conditions related to servicing or the fragmented nature of the parcel change. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

[17:09] Councilor Turner. Through you, Madam Chair. I’m not really opposed to the use. My only concerns are when we have temporary zoning that ends up creating an inhibition or a lack of desire to move towards the ultimate designation that’s being sought. And we have one in the north where I was opposed to it, mostly in the circumstance where this kind of prohibits the use of it as agricultural lands. And our policies are very clear on trying to preserve agricultural lands for productivity as agricultural productive parcels.

[17:45] A driving range doesn’t really support that. I’ll support the extension here. Again, I raise them at every turn wherever we have them because I think they need to be something that we’re conscious of, that we question and we interrogate whenever a temporary use comes up, especially after 28 years. It doesn’t quite seem to be temporary anymore, but thanks for letting me ask questions, Madam Chair. Thank you. And if the committee will allow me, it looks like the applicant is with us.

[18:20] I know he was having difficulties trying to get in. So I would like to go to the applicant to make a few comments if the committee is in favor of doing that. I see some nods. So Mr. Graywall, welcome. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. My apologies for having me on difficulty getting in, but you have up to five minutes, so please proceed. Sorry, I came in on the tail end of that last argument there.

[18:56] I really don’t have much say other than I think this is, it is temporary zoning and unfortunately, I totally understand where it can be a problem. But back to the temporary golf course, I think it serves the community really well. I think especially during COVID, I think we all realize how important it is to get outside and I think this driving range helps that little bit with the whole community and everything else.

[19:30] And that’s pretty much all I got to say right now. Thank you. And very much appreciate you being here with us as well. And without we do have a motion that’s moved and seconded and I see no further comments. So if we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And moving on to our last patient meeting, which is 3.241407 to 1427 Hyde Park Road.

[20:07] I would like to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Layman. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[20:43] And we do have a staff presentation, so I would like to go to staff for the presentation. Madam Chair, if I may, before we get started on that, I believe there’s been an added communication that’s been received on this. The clerk, if there’s something that’s there. Yes, I’d like to go to the secretary for a comment. Thank you. Through the chair, my communication was received and circulated to the council members.

[21:17] However, it was after the Planning and Environment Committee added communication deadline. So it has not been circulated publicly. With that, I would like to proceed with the staff presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. The application at 1407 to 1427 Hyde Park Road was initiated by York developments. The presentation is on your added agenda, I believe.

[21:56] The site is located at the southeast corner of Hyde Park Road and South Carriage Road. It’s approximately 1.4 hectares in size. The lands are currently vacant and they’re surrounded by a combination of residential and commercial uses. The current policy and regulation framework, since the late 1990s, this site has been identified as an area that for street oriented development, all of the policies and all of our zoning bylaw regulations encourage that form of development, not only in the former official plan, but also in the current official plan, the London plan.

[22:40] Even the zoning implements that form of development in this particular case. So it directs development to be sort of street oriented more than one story in height and have rear yard parking. The requested amendments in this specific case, the applicants asked for a specific area of policy to the main street place type policies to allow a one-story building when two stories is the minimum required. They also requested zoning bylaw amendments to permit snack townhouses, maintain the existing special provision exempting the site from the maximum three meter front yard setback.

[23:23] It would also include a maximum density of 65 units per hectare, increase the height permitted from 14.5 meters to 12 meters permitted drive through facility, reduce the parking required from 222 to 202 parking spaces and also allow front yard parking. Post site plan is within your package. It’s in the presentation, as well as some proposed building elevations provided by the applicants, both for the commercial development and for the residential development that’s intended to be in the center of the site.

[24:03] In terms of comments, we had some public comments regarding increased traffic and reduction of pedestrian safety on the site. They questioned the need for another restaurant in this particular area and there were concerns about the impact on climate change. With regards to city department to comments, site plan, urban design and the urban design peer review panel all had significant concerns about the design of the proposal. And lastly, upper Thames River Conservation Authority had a concern because of the presence of a municipal drain that runs through the property.

[24:46] Planning staff are recommending that all of the requests of the amendments be refused based on the following rationale. They’re not consistent with the 2020 provincial policy statement with regards to the form of development. They feel it is an underutilization of the site and may create safety concerns for pedestrians and residents. It’s not in conforming the main street place type and the London plan with regards to intensity and form. The form of development is not consistent with the main street commercial policies in the 1989 official plan which was still enforced when the application was submitted and the business district policies in the Hyde Park community plan.

[25:29] And lastly, the proposed site layout and functioning, how the uses are mixed and the lack of amenity space for residential uses are also a concern. That’s the end of the presentation if the committee has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Are there any technical questions from committee? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was reading Mr. Parker. Just wondering, presented with all of these concerns. So what was the response of the applicant in terms of working toward something that was more consistent with the policy framework?

[26:10] For the chair, we pass these concerns at various points in the review process along to the applicants and as recently as May of this year, we consolidated our comments and forwarded them onto the applicant. They indicated that they would like to go to planning an environment committee and they weren’t prepared at that time to revise their proposal. Councillor Turner. Thank you. Any other technical questions? Moving on to the applicant, Mr. Allen, welcome.

[26:45] You have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC planning. We were acting on behalf of the applicant. At this time, we’d like to advise the committee that our project team has reviewed the planning staff report relating to this application and specifically the basis for staff’s refusal recommendation. From our assessment, we anticipate that the core concerns raised in this report can be adequately resolved through additional dialogue with the city staff and with consideration of the project design elements.

[27:18] It’s like overall site functionality. We therefore respect the request of the committee defer its recommendation on this application pending further project review by the applicant, our project team, that is. We fully anticipate that this review can be completed expeditiously to allow the application you brought back to the committee in the near future for its consideration. And finally, Madam Chair, as discussed at the outside of the meeting, a letter with to this effect was submitted by developments on Friday to the committee’s attention. Thank you all for having answered any questions committee members may have.

[27:54] Thank you, Mr. Allen. Any technical questions for the applicant? Councillor Turner. Madam Chair, and follow up to my question, Mr. Parker, to Mr. Allen, perhaps. And given all of that and in your position that you believe that these might be reconcilable points, why push to proceed to pack at this point? Through you, Madam Chair, as Mr. Parker indicated, the applicant had requested to bring this application before planning committee.

[28:29] Since that time, there’s been effectively two principal changes. First of all, that the anticipated tenets of this development have changed, which allows for a very rapid change to consider alternatives that are, you know, frankly, more in line with the considerations that CSFAP have in terms of the London Plan and generally site design. And secondly, the city’s recent amendments to the parking standards have dramatically reduced to requirements for parking on the site, which again, provides additional flexibility.

[29:04] And finally, the city staff report did provide greater clarity on those outstanding planning issues. And from our perspective, there’s certainly an appetite on the applicant’s part to explore these further and try to come to a record solution. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner, are you fine? That’s true, thank you. I just wanted to make sure committee members were able to hear Mr. Allen’s comments, as it is a little bit wobbly, Mr. Allen, your microphone, I’m not sure, I think we can hear you, but I just wanna just, I hear, I see some nods, so I’m all good with that.

[29:48] I’m sorry for that, Madam Chair. I’ve been asking internally about that exact issue. I hear that from time to time, and I’m not quite sure with this new laptop what the situation is, but I will endeavor to resolve it. Thank you. Thank you, I think we all heard what you had to say. Moving on, we are in the public participation meeting. Notices were sent to the public, so we are gonna continue with the participation meeting. So I will go to the public if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to the recommendation from the city.

[30:51] With that, I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hellier. Close into vote, the motion carries five to zero. And I’d like to committee members for comments. Councillor Turner.

[31:29] Thank you, Madam Chair. As for you to staff, given the suggestion from Mr. Allen about to referral back, does this sound like something that’s workable, or are there considerations that Council should be considering in that referral? Who is going to be answering that? See Mr. Corbe coming on, Mr. Corbe? Yeah, I can try and answer for that.

[32:03] I think at this point in time, we were pretty clear in the staff report, kind of the direction we were looking to go. And again, on those original comments, I don’t think we need to be too specific and there’s anything you want us to specifically look at. But I think overall, the policy is to guide the appropriate kind of form and intensity of development on the property. So I’m fairly comfortable moving forward with the applicant and coming up with the solution here. If there’s anything specific that you want to draw attention to, I’ll leave that up to you. But at this point, I think we’ve had some good dialogue and we know where we need to go from here.

[32:40] Councillor Turner. Thank you, Mr. Corbe, and three, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think that sounds appropriate. I just wanted to make sure that there weren’t any concerns from staff about a referral back. If the recommendation is clear that it needs to be a refusal, if we were up against timelines, those kind of things that we needed to consider as we were navigating through this as stated by Mr. Corbe, that the report is quite clear about what the expectations are within the policy framework. Mr. Allen, it was rather clear that the changes in the circumstances lead to a better prospect of reconciliation on those points.

[33:20] That would be my expectation that if this is referred back, that this does come back with something that is consistent with the policy framework that’s in place. And with that, Councillor Turner, I assume there’s a referral on the floor then. I’m happy to refer if that’s an appropriate one at this point. I’ll look to committee members. I see Councillor Lewis seconding that. I think I’ve got that correct. And I see no other comments from committee members. So with that, we do have a referral on this recommendation to have it referred back to staff.

[33:57] Are we okay with the write up? I’ll just go to the clerk. The recommendation is the application by York developments relating to the properties located at 1407 to 1427 Hyde Park Road. Be referred back to the civic administration for further discussion with the applicant to address the outstanding concerns and to report back at a future meeting of the planning and environment committee. Councillor Turner.

[34:29] Thank you. I think that’s a good recommendation. And I was wondering if it might be appropriate to add at the request of the applicant. Just to kind of clarify, should this be peeled on the basis of no decision in the timely manner that we’ve made it clear that the applicant is asking us to refer it back. And that delay, if any, is at their best. I’ll turn to the clerk if that could be added. If Councillor Lewis. I think that would be most appropriate as in it being noted, ‘cause we are ultimately the ones directing the referral, not the applicant, but it being noted that it’s at the request of the applicant.

[35:21] Sure, I think that would be inappropriate to we’ve placing it. I think we’re just working on it and give us a few seconds here to get the wording up. Do we need to refresh our screens if we can do that and refresh one more time?

[36:41] And I think you should see the referral back on our screens. I’ve got some nods from everyone. Councillor Turner, are you good with that? I’m not finding it, but I will listen. We’ll read it out just for the sake of the public as well, that the application by York developments relating to the properties located at 1407, 1427 Hyde Park Road, be referred back to the Civic Administration for further discussions with the applicant to address the outstanding concerns and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, it being noted that the referral is at the request of the applicant.

[37:30] All right, and with that, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And moving on to items for direction, Denon, deferred matters, additional business. Business 5.1 is the deferral matters list.

[38:07] If the committee will allow me, I do have a quick question to staff. I noticed a number of these items are, our timelines are for the end of this year and just a question to staff. If we’re on time, there’s quite a few of them to be brought back. Through you, Madam Chair, if I may, this right now is where we believe they will be here.

[38:46] So we are expecting to get a lot of these back by the end of this year. There are some that have been identified for into next year as well, but there are some here that we are hoping to get cleaned up and brought back by the end of the year. Good to hear that. And with that, I’m looking for a motion to receive the deferral list. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hellier, can we proceed to vote or?

[39:34] Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Being two members to adjourn the meeting. Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Hellier. All those in favor, can we do a hand vote? Hand vote. The motion carries. Thanks, everyone. Yeah, compared to last time, that’s for sure.