Open Council

16th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

Open Council

16th Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee

October 3, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:02 PM, with Councillor A. Hopkins in the Chair, Councillors S. Lewis and S. Lehman present and all other members participating by remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Items 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2022-09-15 ECAC 3rd Report

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 15, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed

2.2   5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2022-09-14 CACP Report 5

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on September 14, 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2022-A02)

Motion Passed

2.3   3924 and 4138 Colonel Talbot Road - Heathwoods - Phase 5 (39T-12503)

2022-10-03 Staff Report - Heathwoods Phase 5 (39T-12503)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Auburn Developments Ltd., for the subdivision of land situated on the east side of Colonel Talbot Road, north of Lambeth Walk, municipally known as 3924-4128 Colonel Talbot Road:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Auburn Developments Ltd., for the Heathwoods Subdivision, Phase 5 (39T-12503_5) appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2022 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b) the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2022 as Appendix “B”; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.4   Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 870 Queens Avenue, Old East Heritage Conservation District

2022-10-03 Staff Report - 870 Queens Avenue (HAP22-053-L)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for painting previously unpainted brick of the heritage designated property at 870 Queens Avenue, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

it being noted that removing the paint from the brick is necessary to restore the property to its former condition.  (2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.5   634 Commissioners Road West (Z-9541)

2022-10-03 Staff Report - 634 Commissioners Road West (Z-9541)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the designation of the property at 634 Commissioners Road West:

a) Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the associated staff report dated October 3, 2022; and,

b) should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property located at 634 Commissioners Road West to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

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

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   2810 Roxburgh Road (Z-9525)

2022-10-03 Staff Report - 2810 Roxburgh Road (Z-9525)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Harpreet Singh (2309529 Ontario Inc.), relating to the property located at 2810 Roxburgh Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan, 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI2) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI6(_)) Zone;

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

a)    appropriate setbacks along the site boundaries, provide enhanced landscaping along the site borders, and use enhanced landscaping and street trees along Roxburgh Road to screen the development and meet City tree planting requirements; and,

b)    hard surfacing for the parking lot;

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 policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Light Industrial Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of an otherwise underutilized parcel of land within an existing Industrial Area;

  •    the proposed use is considered appropriate for the context of the site; and,

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Land Use Designations policies for Industrial Areas within the Brockley Industrial Neighbourhood.  (2022-D21)

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. Lehman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   16 Wethered Street (Z-9309)

2022-10-03 Staff Report - 16 Wethered Streeet (Z-9309)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 24457277 Ontario Inc. (Phil Pattyn), relating to the property located at 16 Wethered Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London (The London Plan 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM  a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R5-4 Special Provision (R5-4(_)) Zone; and,

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

i) if board-on-board fencing will impact the existing trees, infill plantings will be required;

ii) provide an alternative site design to allow street facing units with garages at the rear units along the back to provide for the continued street-wall and have the rear block private amenity spaces abutting the other private amenity spaces;

iii) any surface parking be buffered from the street by the building with the driveway located closer to the south property line;

iv) centrally located amenity space that is safely and comfortably accessible from all units;

v) retain as many trees on the property as possible, specifically on the eastern border of the property; and,

vi)    provide enhanced landscaping where trees are not able to be preserved;

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

  •    a communication dated September 19, 2022, from D. Lamont;

-    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication dated September 28, 2022, from M. Leyland;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    J. Williams, 1171 Dobie Street;

  •    Joseph, one of the owners of 16 Wethered Street; and,

  •    M. Leyland;

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 recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Density Residential Designation and Near-Campus Neighbourhoods;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and Near-Campus Neighbourhoods ; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.   (2022-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   850 Highbury Avenue North

2022-10-03 Staff Report - 850 Highbury Avenue North Demolition

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the demolition request for the removal of (3) non-designated built resources on the heritage designated property at 850 Highbury Avenue North, BE PERMITTED pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act subject to the following terms and conditions:

a) prior to demolition, photo-documentation of the (3) non-designated built resources be provided to the City;

b) during demolition, construction fencing and buffering of sensitive areas be implemented per Project Site Plan in Appendix B of the staff report dated October 3, 2022;

c) during demolition, restrict construction routes to areas outside the treed allée; and,

d) conduct and implement recommendations of a pre-condition survey, specific to the (3) non-designated built resources, to mitigate the risk of vibration from demolition activity on heritage designated resources;

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

  •    B. McCauley, Old Oak Properties.    (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   185 and 189 Wellington Street

2022-10-03 Staff Report - 185 and 189 Wellington Street

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the request by 2698746 Ontario Inc. and 2700875 Ontairo Inc., to remove the properties located at 185 and 189 Wellington Street respectively, from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources:

a) the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the built resource on the property at 185 Wellington Street;

b) the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the built resource on the property at 189 Wellington Street;

c) the property at 185 Wellington Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources, and;

d) the property at 189 Wellington Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

  •    C. Pretotto, Cspace Architecture.     (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   ReThink Zoning Information Report - Update and Sample Place Type Zones

2022-10-03 Staff Report - ReThink Zoning Information Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated October 3, 2022 entitled “ReThink Zoning Information Report - Update and Sample Place Type Zones”, BE RECEIVED for information.(2022-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   Zoning By-law Amendment - Seasonal Outdoor Patios

2022-10-03 Staff Report - Zoning By-law Patio Restrictions

Moved by S. Turner

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to zoning regulations related to seasonal outdoor patios:

a) the proposed revised by-law as appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022, to amend Section 4.18 of the Zoning By-law Z.-1; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting with respect to the capacity limits and to explore any opportunities to update the limits as they relate to Section 4.18.1 of the Zoning By-law.  (2022-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   Personal Matters / Identifiable Individual

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Turner

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

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convened, in Closed Session, from 5:22 PM to 5:26 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:28 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 (1 hour, 30 minutes)

[8:23] Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 16th meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Leopanek, and the Atawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work, live in this territory.

[9:05] 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@lendon.ca or 519-661-2489, extension of 2/4, 2/5, and just before we proceed, committee members, Mayor Ed Holder will not be joining us this evening.

[9:38] So moving on to number one, disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none. I’d like to move on to the consent items. Committee members, looking for a motion, comments. Councillor Lewis. Madam Chair, I’m happy to move all five items on the consent agenda. The staff reports on those were pretty clear, so move those. Looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman.

[10:13] Any other comments from the committee? If not, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. On to the scheduled items. The first one is 3.1.

[10:45] It’s a public participation meeting for 2810 Roxburg Road. Looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hoyer. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. This is a zoning amendment from light industrial to light industrial with special provisions noting in the recommendation that setbacks and boundaries and landscape will be provided as well as hard-serving for parking a lot.

[11:33] There is no presentation now from staff. I would like to go now to the public. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments or the applicant, I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here. Would like to make comments to this recommendation. Please come forward stating your name and address if you wish.

[12:15] With that, I will look to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Hoyer. Seconded by Councillor Layman. You can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Do committee for motion, Councillor Layman, comments? I’ll move the staff recommendation.

[12:50] Looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis seconds. And if there are any comments from committee members. See none with that, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Being on to 3.2, which is a public participation meeting for 16 weathered street, looking to the committee to open up the public participation meeting.

[13:35] Councillor Layman, looking for a seconder. Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Does the staff presentation like to go to staff? Welcome.

[14:11] Good evening, committee members, colleagues and members of the public. My name is Olya and I’m with the planning implementation team. And I’ll be speaking to the zoning amendment application, Z9309 at 16 weathered street, which is slide one on page 178 of the agenda this evening. So moving forward to slide number two on page 179. The subject site is located on the east side of weathered street approximately 60 meters north of Oxford street in the Carling Planning District.

[14:47] Seeing weathered street is roughly about 0.2 hectares in size with a lot fronted to 30 meters in yard depth of 66 meters and currently contains a single detached dwelling on the site. If we can turn our attention to slide number three on page 180, which displays the conceptual site plan and rendering. So the applicant is requesting to rezone the subject site to permit the development of a two-story townhouse building containing eight units, which is equivalent to 40 units per hectare. The zoning amendment before us seeks to rezone the site from a residential R1-6 zone to a residential R5, special provision R5-4 zone providing for townhouses that would permit this development.

[15:34] Turning to slide number four on page 181, I’d like to speak to a previous report related to this application. In November 2021, the applicant submitted a zoning application to rezone the subject site to residential R5 special provision, R5-4 zone to facilitate the development of a two-story eight-unit townhouse building. At the May 31st, 2021 planning and environmental committee public meeting, the decision was made to defer the application and direct civic administration to review the proposal within the context of the near campus neighborhood policies as they relate to residential intensification, focusing on the loss front onto neighborhood streets, near campus neighborhood policies, sorry, as they front to neighborhood streets, but are immediately adjacent to rapid transit place types or urban corridor place types.

[16:36] Turning to slide number five, images of the original and revised elevations that were submitted by the applicant can be seen. So following this PEC meeting in 2021, the applicant did make some changes to the design of the proposal, as you can see. The change related specifically to the elevations of the eight-unit building in an effort to reflect the visual appearance of a single detached dwelling along the street and help lend the development into the neighborhood. The notable changes to the elevations include greater portion of a fenestration on elevations, addition of more articulation features, including additional gables and carp, parapets, front door facing weathered street for the Westerly townhouse unit with a wide front porch and canopy and a greater variety of orientation of planning material.

[17:30] Now turning to slide six on page 183, I’ll speak to the policy context, which relates to the site. I’ll try to go quickly, as this might be a little bit more on the dry side. So the provincial policy statement 2020 direct settlement areas to be the focus of growth and development, further stating that the vitality and regeneration of settlement areas is critical to the long-term economic prosperity of our communities. It also directs planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and a mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area.

[18:09] In terms of policy context within our London plan, it is in the neighborhoods place type fronting a neighborhood street, which is weathered street. So permitted uses within this place type includes single detach, semi-detached duplex, converted dwellings, townhouses, secondary suites, home occupations, and group homes. The permitted heights within this place type are between one and two and a half stories. The London plan provides direction to build a mixed use capacity by planning for infill and intensification on various types and forms to take advantage of the existing services and facilities and to reduce our needs to grow outward.

[18:49] Lastly, the 1989 official plan. The current designation is low density residential. Within this designation, residential intensification may be permitted up to 75 units per hectare in the form of single detach and semi-detached dwellings, detached dwellings, cluster housing, and low rise apartment. This subject site is also found within the near campus neighborhood policy. Residential intensification is contemplated within near campus neighborhoods where the site can function and accommodate the site requirements related to servicing, parking, grading, and the retention of significant vegetation for the development is appropriate within the context of the neighborhood and adheres to the policy set forth between the London plan and the 1989 official plan.

[19:38] Staff are satisfied that the recommendation provided provide an appropriate form of residential intensification within the near campus neighborhood. Given that the site’s location on the periphery of a low density neighborhood and the proximity to the urban corridor place type, the proposal is considered an appropriate location, form of intensification to provide a transition from future higher intensity development along the Oxford Street East to the existing low density residential neighborhood. If we can turn to slide eight on page 185, this speaks to the direction that was given at the 2021 PEC meeting which directed staff to evaluate the lots fronting neighborhood streets but are adjacent to rapid transit place types or urban corridor place types.

[20:27] So I’m just gonna speak fairly quickly about the urban corridor place types or urban corridor place types will be places that encourage intensification over the course of London plan so that they can mature to support higher order transit in the future. Given that the plan function of Oxford Street East for more intense mixed use development, the development is an appropriate example of appropriate intensification in a location that can provide a transition between high and low intensity uses. Within the urban corridor place type, buildings have a standard maximum height of six stories in order to be sensitive to the adjacent land uses and employs such methods such as transitioning buildings, heights to provide first sufficient buffers to ensure compatibility.

[21:14] This townhouse building is to be two stories and below the maximum height permitted in the urban corridor place type. And as such, staff are satisfied that the intent of the urban corridor place type policies have been achieved. If we can turn to slide nine on page 16, 186, I just wanna reiterate the summary of the request is to rezone to a residential R5 special provision, R5-4 providing for the townhouse development or townhouse that would permit the development.

[21:49] The special provision that is being requested to facilitate the development is a minimum front yard set back five meters in place of six meters. And staff are also recommending the following special provision. So a maximum height of 10.5 meters and a minimum of two street oriented units shall be required along Weather Street with the front facing and primary entrances being orientated to Weather Street. This will provide for the continued street wall and have the rear block private amenity spaces abutting the other private amenity spaces.

[22:26] And lastly, if you can turn our attention to the last slide on page 187, staff are recommending approval as the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and conforms to the enforced policies of the London Sun and the 1989 Official Plan. The recommended amendment would facilitate the development of an underutilized state with land use and intensity that is appropriate for the site. Thank you all for your attention and I am available for any question. Thank you, Ms. Alchas.

[22:59] I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing that correctly. If you could correct me, I’d appreciate it. No problem through you, Madam Chair, it’s Alchas. Alchas, well, thank you very much for the presentation and I will go to committee members for any technical questions. Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you. One of the concerns from the residents has been parking in the area and what I’m concerned about is this could be turned into some student housing and I only see parking for one.

[23:36] I don’t see any overflow parking at all. So I’m assuming you were relying on street parking and this literally is right off Oxford Street and people turn off Oxford Street had a good clip. And I’m just wondering, has any consideration for any kind of extra parking? I’m looking in the back. Any kind of visitor parking been considered? Through you, Madam Chair. So there is a total of 16 parking spaces that are to be provided.

[24:09] And I do believe that there is visitor parking so there should be up. I may allow the applicant to speak to that as the site plan may actually change. So just to confirm, Councillor Hillier, there are 16 spaces that are provided. Thank you, I’m just looking at the map and it’s just a such a small little thing to turn to zoom in on. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. No other technical questions of staff?

[24:43] I would like to go to the applicant if the applicant is here. Madam Chair, it’s Matt Campbell from Zalynka Priammo. Can you hear me? Yes, Mr. Campbell, welcome. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thanks to staff on this application. As staff mentioned, this previously came to Planning Committee. There was a good and healthy discussion on that and it was ultimately deferred. We went back and made some changes, work with staff on the preferred implementing zoning by-law and we’re satisfied that we can make a quality development here and would certainly encourage the committee to move with the staff recommendation to approve here.

[25:26] Just on the comment regarding parking, I’m sure the committee is well aware that parking rates have recently changed in the city. And while we’re hitting the previous parking rate, we are well over supplied for parking based on the new parking rates. So while we recognize the concern, we don’t think that’s going to be an issue moving forward with this application. Happy to answer any questions that the committee or members of the public may have as always. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

[25:57] And with that, I see no technical questions of the applicant. I’ll just move to the public now. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments, please come forward. You do have up to five minutes if you could state your name and address if you wish. Hi, good afternoon. If I’m able, I’d like to just make a comment. Yes, is this Mr. Williams?

[26:31] Yes, my name’s Jesse Williams. I’m a resident and the owner of 1171 Dopey Street. Yeah, please. A property, which is just— If I can interrupt, please proceed. And you do have up to five minutes. Great, thank you. All right, yes, my name’s Jesse. I’ve been a longtime blended resident. We’re up on the east end of Cascade, which is now, I think Marconi, kind of growing up, it was kind of a little bit difficult. My father that I had 12, my mother was often absent.

[27:05] School’s kind of hard for me to have autism and ADHD. 2017 Canadian Survey on Disabilities stated that 14% of respondents, adult respondents, are able to secure full-time employment. There are a lot of day-to-day difficulties for me and for me specifically, very sensitive to noise. The reason that I mentioned this is just to kind of contextualize how this will impact me and my family. Now, I’m kind of like an abstract way about like safety or, you know, nymphism or anything like that.

[27:42] But I have a real concern that this will affect my ability to provide for myself and my family and it’ll have an impact in the way that I work. I work from home. This will be directly adjacent to my office. So for both the construction and also the occupancy of these units, which I anticipate will likely be student housing, I’m very concerned about that. I chose this location very specifically. It’s the end of the dead end street. The adjacent lots are kind of like the backyards of other single family homes.

[28:21] I chose it very specifically because it is a quiet location that I’d be able to be successful and be able to work. And if I’d known that the occupancy would increase eight whole, it certainly would have moved here. So just personally, I just wanted to make it know like this will have a real impact. And I just wanted to share that. Aside from that, my only kind of like source of respite from what I anticipate will be the noise of this will be I have two trees, two maple trees, which are directly in front of my office, my bathroom, my dining area.

[29:00] And these two trees are kind of fit in your mark to be removed referring to the tree preservation plan. They’re number 19 and 20. They’re labeled as being in poor condition. And the kind of the reason given for this is I think like they have a ceiling trunk room, gnarly form, they seem to be like aesthetic reasons. I’m not nervous or I’m not sure what constitutes good or poor condition, but from what I can tell, they are in good condition.

[29:36] So it’s certainly just generally speaking, I’m opposed to this project. But if it were to go through, I would just ask if there’s a possibility to be able to keep that just as some form of some sort of barrier to this project. My partner is currently working. She’s not able to be here, but she kind of echoes these kind of viewpoints. I think that’s all I had to say. Thank you for your time.

[30:09] Thank you, Mr. Williams, for your comments. I’d like to go again to the public. If there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this recommendation, they could come forward. And I’ll ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation, 16 Weather Street. Yes, I see someone in the gallery.

[30:42] If you could go over to the microphone, sir, and please introduce yourself. State your address if you wish. We have up to five minutes. Hi, hi, everyone. Can you speak to in the microphone? I will let you know if we can hear you. Yeah, hi, hi, everyone. I’d just— Sorry, if you can speak closer to the microphone so we can all hear. Just a little bit closer. OK. That’s much better. Yeah, my name is Joseph. I’m just one of the property owner of 16 Weather Street. I just keep giving to you ideas.

[31:21] So these planning, the zoning change is really needed for the— in order to get an affordable housing in London. We, everyone know that we are facing so much issues for affordable housing. So I would prefer the city needed to give the approval for the zoning change for these 16 Weather Street. It was a really appreciate for the city council. OK, thank you.

[31:54] Thank you. I’d like to ask one more time if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments. I see none. With that, I will go to the committee to close the public participant. Madam chair. Oh, sorry. I’m sorry to jump in. It’s part of Westlake Power. I know that we have another member of the public who has phoned in. And I believe she may be having some difficulty getting unmuted because she’s on the phone. So it should be star— I believe it’s star six to unmute the phone.

[32:36] So if I could let the resident— Good afternoon. Yes, we can hear you. Good afternoon. And I’m glad that you were able to get through. If you could state your name, please, address if you wish. And we are here to listen to what you have to say. And you have up to five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Marjorie. And I live on Fox Street. And with respect to development at 16 Weather Street, I’ve been watching it with interest. And I can appreciate all the work that I’ve done.

[33:09] But my concern is the infill into the neighborhood. I understand this is close. It meets all of the legal requirements for the city. But my concern is a lot of other locks that are in our neighborhood that they also will be developed in this fashion. And I do not want that to happen. I have lived in this neighborhood for close to 30 years. I’ve appreciated the fitness. And I also thank you for bringing that up, because we also chose this neighborhood, because it was quiet.

[33:46] There’s lots of space between us and our neighbors. And it has afforded us to have a very quiet place to bring up our family. And while we know we live close to Fanshawe College, it also has been an area where we have big backyards for our families, and that we are able to provide that for them. In our neighborhood, there is not a lot of green space. The neighborhood was developed in the 1950s and 1960s. We already have had landers park reduced significantly, probably about 25, 30 years ago.

[34:22] There was housing developed there. So that was taken away from a neighborhood. And we also have not— this recently had some upgrades in the neighborhood, but not a lot of them down here. And I feel like a neighborhood is forgotten. And people drive by it on Oxford and Highway. Not a lot is done here for our neighborhood. And I can appreciate that affordable housing is needed. But we are literally a year away from Oxford and Highway being developed.

[34:54] But it’s going to be a lot of opportunity for students to live there and affordable housing. So I’m not sure the need to have this in our neighborhood, with this many units that are available. And I would just like to say that I do not want our neighborhood to be over one by development. And I appreciate the quietness that is here. Thank you. Thank you, Marci. And I would like to now go one last time.

[35:28] I’ll be asking if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this recommendation. With that, I’d like to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Lewis, and proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0.

[36:04] And before I go to committee members, there was a question around the trees and the retention. And I wonder if I can go to staff to just get a general idea of what the plan for the trees in the area are. Through the chair, my core be here. Through the review process, the tree preservation plan was reviewed by the landscape architect.

[36:39] And they had no concerns with the tree removal. I think exciting. The reasons mentioned that the trees were not worth saving. So at this point in time, they are identified to be removed. That being said, that can be further reviewed through the site plan approval process, if that’s a desire of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Corby. And I’ll go to committee for comments or motion. Councillor Layman.

[37:14] Thank you, staff. And thank you to the applicant for coming back with a revised plan. Couldn’t be up to six stories. This is two stories. And the street presence is much improved. I would like to address the tree issue around the— especially at the back of the property, as per the one person who addressed the committee. So maybe, Chair, you could help me on this. Is that do we need an amendment to this? Or do we— how can we instruct staff? Is what suggested by staff to pursue that? I think it was suggested by Mr. Corby that it can be looked at.

[37:53] The trees could be looked at through the site plan process. There could be an amendment we could add to retain as many trees as possible. It is really up to the committee. Well, that I’d like to make an amendment. So clerk, to help me out with the wording on this, just a specific direction to site plan to address replacement of the trees that are going to be removed, especially around the perimeter of the property, especially on the east end of the property.

[38:41] To have staff review through the site plan process, to look at replacing the trees around the perimeter of the east side, specifically, throughout the property as well, or just— Yeah, that’s sufficient for me. Thank you. I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis. And I am not sure if the clerk has it up here, just so we can double check.

[39:24] So this is an amendment to the recommendation part of B. Do you see it there?

[40:01] I’m still waiting for it to come up, or I’m just having a few technical challenges here. Yeah, if the clerk can please read it just so we understand it, and for the sake of the public as well. So under part B, the site plan approval authority be requested to consider the following through the site plan process.

[40:41] A new part B retain as many trees as possible, especially around the eastern border of the property. And with that, I see I’ve got a thumbs up from the mover. And if the seconder is OK, any other comments from committee members? Councillor Turner. Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks to the mover of this. Certainly, sympathetic to Mr. Williams’ concerns on this, perhaps through staff. If I might, or through you, Madam Chair, to staff, just wondering if there might be some other site plan recommendations that might serve as mitigated measures to support the concerns that Mr. Williams raised.

[41:27] It might help specifically to questions of visual disturbance and noise and things like that, that might serve as buffers between his property and the proposed development. Through the chair, it’s Mike Corby here. So through the site plan process, there will be board on board density and required around the property. Additionally, another direction to site plan approval could be to seek enhanced landscaping along that edge. I know we’re talking about retaining trees, but we could be to provide enhanced landscaping, especially where trees aren’t able to be preserved.

[42:07] So that could be an additional direction or added to the clause we’ve already provided. Thank you, Mr. Corby. I think that sounds appropriate if the mover is amenable, then I’d like to add that too. Mr. Corby, can you suggest the wording at the end again? Sorry, to be added, to support Councillor Turner’s motion. Is it through the construction? You mentioned the fencing. So through the chair, the fencing will be required.

[42:42] I don’t know if we need that language I was just offering it, but I think it’s the main things to add enhanced landscaping to be considered through site plan approval, kind of adding that to the existing application you just added. Right, and I just wanna make sure the clerk is able to get that added to the amendment with the enhanced landscaping through the site plan process. So the new part, VI enhanced landscaping where trees are not able to be preserved.

[43:48] Madi, can you see that? We have a comment from the committee. Do you know anything about that? We can proceed to vote. Want to make sure? Yep. Madam Chair, just for you, is that acceptable to the mover? I just wanted to make sure I’m not jumping on top of this. Sorry, sorry, Councillor Turner. You can see his thumb up and I know you can’t. So yes, it is a minimal to the mover and the seconder. Thank you for that.

[44:25] Councillor Halmer, welcome. Thank you, sir. You were asking for comments from committee members and I just held back, but before you vote, I just wanted to say appreciate we’ve gotten to a place where modest intensification of the site can proceed. This is an area where the existing property has, honestly been a problem for a very long time and redevelopment of the site from perspective of the neighbors, especially folks who live on Weatherford Street would be very welcome. I think adding in some gentle density like this in an area that’s very close to Oxford Street is the kind of thing that we need to be seeing along these urban corridors.

[45:07] And I’m glad that the referral that we made last year has resulted into a recommendation where we can have plenty of staff supporting change and giving some direction around site plan so we can get the best possible form of development in this area or some sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors who are adjacent around the buffering and I’m glad that committee members have already acted to try and preserve as much buffer as possible and to replace what needs to be taken down as part of the construction.

[45:41] I think the recommendation was already in there from staff about the impact of the fencing and if any of those boundary trees were to drop and that they need to be replaced. And I think the key is that they get replaced with reasonably large caliper trees that will provide the same kind of function as what’s there, relatively short rubber and not little sticks that take a long time. So I think the developer, the applicant is going to replace that as well. It’s good for their property too, to have mature trees on the site. And so I think the direction to the site plan to provide authority is good here.

[46:15] Thanks very much. Thank you, Councillor Helmer. And I know it was your motion referring this back to see how the applicant and staff could work and I’m glad to see that we’re able to get something that is also able to protect the community as well through the process with the buffering and retention of trees. So thank you, committee members for the work. And with that, I don’t see any further comments. So we can proceed to vote.

[47:12] Closing on to 3.3 is a public participation meeting of four 850 Highbury Avenue North looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman. Layman seconded by Councillor Lewis. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[47:54] We have in front of us a recommendation. I know this has been an ongoing conversation here at planning with the non-designated buildings. And I know Ms. Dent is here for a very quick throwable on this, just to give the committee members an update and why we’re here, Ms. Dent. Yes, through you Madam Chair, are you able to hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you.

[48:27] This staff report was prepared in response to request by old properties to remove three non-designated built resources on the former London psychiatric hospital lands at 850 Highbury Avenue North. The property was designated in 2000 under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Four of the buildings have been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest. And these are being retained and conserved. This is the Chapel of Hope, the Horse Stable, the Infirmary and the Recreation Hall, along with landscape features such as the tree lined outlay.

[49:04] There are many more built resources that do not contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. Demolition of these non-contributing built resources are being requested because redevelopment is proposed on the subject lands. And a second phase of building removals is required to accommodate the Official Plan Amendment application. Some of these built resources are the subject of this demolition request. So this demolition request is phase two and includes the requested demolition of a garage, pump house and underground water storage tank and South Pavilion building and extensions.

[49:46] Council should note that a previous demolition request for eight non-designated buildings on the property was heard by the Planning and Environment Committee on May 30th, 2022 and approved at the subsequent council meeting in June. This request included eight, as I mentioned, non-designated buildings, the North Pavilion building, the Ontario Government building, track bar, tractor bar and greenery, soccer shed, potting shed, laundry building and powerhouse. And considering the current phase two demolition requests to remove the three non-designated built resources, staff notes the following.

[50:27] These resources do not contribute to the cultural heritage value or interests of the property and are not identified in the designating by law or heritage easement agreement registered on the property. The removal will not negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interests of the property. Further impacts to the remaining designated heritage resources have been identified. And to mitigate the risk, a strategy to carry out a precondition survey, vibration monitoring and post-condition survey is proposed.

[51:00] And finally, potential impacts to the remaining designated heritage resources will be sufficiently mitigated through construction buffering, fencing, restriction to construction routes to areas outside the trialade and monitoring demolition migration impacts, heritage staff’s recommendation as that the demolition of these three non-designated built resources should be permitted. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stent.

[51:31] Any technical questions? Then I would like to now go to the applicant if the applicant is here. Good evening, Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Thank you. This is Ben McCauley from Old Oak Properties. Just briefly, we have had a chance to review the staff report further to subsequent discussions with staff. We are agreeable to the terms and conditions noted in the recommendation in the staff report and I’m here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[52:04] Thank you, Mr. McCauley. And with that, I will move to the public if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to the demolition requests for the three non-designated buildings. I’ll ask one more time. If there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments to the demolition request here and see none.

[52:41] So with that, I will go to committee members to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, who’s the motion? And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis. We can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, looking for a motion, comments. Councillor Layman.

[53:15] I’ll move the staff recommendation. The seconder, I see Councillor Lewis. Any comments from the committee? Seeing none, I’ll just make a comment here from the chair supporting the recommendation. I’d like to see that photo documentation in there as well for the buildings and really appreciate the work the applicant and staff have done on this one. So with that, we can proceed to vote.

[54:04] Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. So moving on and now to 3.4, which is the public participation meeting for 185 and 189 Wellington Street. Looking to open up the public participation meeting. Councillor Turner, and I’m looking for a seconder. Councillor Layman. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

[54:47] There is not a staff presentation on this one. I just want to let the committee, I’ll remind the committee this is a request to remove properties from the register for 185 Wellington Street and for 189 Wellington Street. As well, I wonder if the applicant is here at all? My name is Chris Brittado from C-Space Architecture. I’m just on the applicant for these two properties. Please proceed, Chris, you have up to five minutes.

[55:25] Okay, we’re just requesting the removal of both 185 and 189 Wellington Street from the city’s register of cultural heritage resources. Reasons for this removal request include A, to further clarify the way for future redevelopment and/or rehabilitation in both lots. B, to clarify the way for 185 and 189 Wellington Street to be demolished. 189 in particular has deteriorated, has been vandalized to the point where access may no longer be a safe endeavor. So, accompanying our application, you can see all the documents that are there, including a cultural heritage impact statement for both properties, prepared by Wayne Morgan, the heritage planner.

[56:08] Key statement on page 59, item 10.1, is after a detailed examination of the history and evaluation of the resources on the site, this cultural heritage impact statement found that neither of the two properties warrant designation under the act. We also had a stage one in stage two archaeological assessment prepared by Thomas G. Arnold and associates. A key statement from that can be found on page nine from the stage two section. Based on the above analysis and conclusion, the subject property no longer has any cultural heritage value or archaeological potential.

[56:44] No further archaeological assessment is recommended for the property. So, we’re hoping that this letter, the attached documentation and this request provides sufficient material for you to proceed with relevant consultation and making the way for removal from these two properties from the register. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I’d like to now go to the public, if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to make comments. And I’ll ask one last time, if there’s anyone here from the public that would like to speak to the request to remove the properties from the register for 185 and 189 Wellington Street.

[57:38] I’d like to go to the committee to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. With that, I will go to the committee for a motion or comments, both. Councillor Lewis.

[58:14] Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll move to the staff recommendation. Thank you for a seconder, Councillor Layman. Are there any further comments? If we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And moving on now, that is the end of the schedule items. We’ll move on to items for direction.

[58:50] We have 4.1, which is the Rethink Zoning Information Report. This is an update to the Rethink Zoning that we are receiving here. I would like to maybe just to go to staff, if they have just an overall comment or some information that they can share with us. Good morning, Madam Chair.

[59:22] Can you hear me? It’s mostly Campbell? Yes, I can. Great, thanks. So actually, I do have a quick little verbal presentation that I can provide on this update. So this is an information report to the committee, providing an update on the project consultants’ progress to date regarding the preparation of the new comprehensive zoning by-law to implement the London Plan and replace the current Z1 by-law. So the London Plan provides a place-based approach to planning for how London should grow.

[59:56] And this is an innovative departure from our traditional land use focused approach of the previous 1989 Official Plan. The London Plan considers all elements that contribute to how people experience a place and directs that development will be evaluated with a more balanced consideration of use, intensity, and form. So the purpose of the sample zones is to illustrate how policies in the London Plan could transition into regulation. The sample zones are a snapshot of the first draft of the new zoning by-law and propose what a new zoning by-law could look like in terms of the structure of a by-law based on the organizational principles of use, intensity, and form.

[1:00:37] So the sample zones also include some sample mapping or some zone schedules and some preliminary regulations. In particular, the downtown place type, the neighborhood’s place type, and the light industrial place type were selected for the three sample zones. And these three place types were selected ‘cause each are expected to define, or excuse me, are expected to be defined by and emphasize use, intensity, and form differently. So in my report, there was a image of a triangle and it showed where the neighborhoods, the downtown place type, and the light industrial place type might fall within that balanced approach of use, intensity, and form differently.

[1:01:20] So while all of the sample place type zones will have or reflect use, intensity, and form, they might reflect that emphasis differently. So for example, in the neighborhood’s place type where fit and compatibility are very important, there is an equal consideration of the use, the intensity it might take, but also the form it might take, whereas in the light industrial place type, where compatibility between land uses and sensitive land uses are of greater importance than the emphasis might fall more on the use considerations rather than the form consideration.

[1:02:09] In terms of the sample zones, they do present a general framework that could form the structure of the new zoning by-law and propose to divide the zoning by-law into five parts. So the first part would be the general and place type zones. The second part would be the site and area specific zones, then the third part would be the place type zone maps followed by what the consultant is proposing to be a place type height map overlay, and then the fifth part would be any additional overlay mapping that would be required to implement the London plan.

[1:02:46] Each place type zone in the first part of the zoning by-law would comprise a chapter, and those place type zones would be divided into sections that include general regulations, use regulations, form regulations, intensity regulations, climate resiliency regulations, and other regulations. So again, in the structure of the chapters, you see how we’re really pulling out the framework of use intensity and form to implement the London plan. Additional goals for the new zoning by-law would include a more flexible zoning by-law to reduce the number of amendments that might be needed, and also a by-law that’s easier to use and understand.

[1:03:31] So conditional uses are proposed by the project team that would allow for the new zoning by-law to consider a broader range of uses and intensity as well ensuring that there are performance standards associated with that broader range of uses that allow for a more specific response to the context or design to ensure that it’s appropriate for the site. Illustrations, diagrams, and photographs have also been included in the sample zones, and this is to help with the readability and user experience with the sample zones and could potentially be brought forward into a new zoning by-law.

[1:04:16] What’s important to note with this update report and the sample zones in particular is that this is a preliminary proposal by the project consultant. So the sample zones are there for discussion purposes. The sample zones are going to be subject to consultation and review by city staff, key stakeholders, and the broader public following this report to the planning environment committee. There will be opportunities for consultation engagement from October of this year through to December, which brings us to the end of the year, and then this will help to inform the first draft of the zoning by-law, which is expected in the new year.

[1:04:57] It’s expected that through this feedback, we’ll be able to provide a first draft of the zoning by-law that would perhaps modify and refine some of these preliminary proposed sample regulations. So thank you, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Campbell. And I just want to remind the committee we are receiving this right now. We did receive some correspondence from the London Development Institute as well, just to bring that to your attention.

[1:05:29] And with that, I’ll go to committee for any comments, questions. Councillor Layman. Yeah, I think we’re on the right path here, and thank you to staff for getting this to this point, where I see this really being helpful for future planning committee members. As we go down the path of expected infill projects that we know is that we are in desperate need of to address our affordable housing and housing supply.

[1:06:06] And it’s a challenge here at committee to take in applications and staff recommendations and pair them against concerns of neighbors, which are impacted a lot of infill projects. So I think this will provide good guidance once the rethinking zoning is completed. And I encourage staff members that are working on this is to bear in mind the challenge we have as committee members and council to get to our goals of infill, but with recognizing the impact that it has on neighbors that these projects are coming beside.

[1:06:58] So I will move that we receive this report. Thank you, Councillor Layman. And I, with that, I’ll look to a seconder that I’m also looking to committee members for any questions, comments as well. Do we need to a seconder for the direction? Okay. So I’m looking for a seconder as well.

[1:07:32] Councillor Lewis and committee members, if you have no questions, comments, Councilor Turner? Just a really brief comment. I like the approach. I like the idea of throwing some samples forward for discussion points, be very intrigued to see the community discussion as this moves forward. And I think this is a really essential component of actioning what the London plan and its aspirations and how you execute those principles within the London plan.

[1:08:10] It’s really dependent on key on the way we do our zoning and how it really reflects our needs for the years to come. So I unfortunately won’t be around to see it implemented, but I’ll be watching it with the keen observer eyes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Turner. Any other comments from committee? I just may make a couple of comments from the chair. I know there will be a working group.

[1:08:45] I think that’s going to be really important. Hopefully that working group will be composed of a number of stakeholders in the community. It’s going to be important for that engagement to work through this zoning by law. I’m sort of surprised it’s going to take us this long though we’re sort of looking at a whole year before the by-law comes back to us. But there’s probably a lot of work still to come on this. I was really pleased to hear from staff about the importance of having the by-law flexible to accommodate the London plan, I guess.

[1:09:32] But more important, the flexibility, it’s going to be needed. I think it’s something that the community needs to understand as well. And I’m not sure how we do that, but I would really encourage this process to have that community engage to understand the by-law and to have it as user-friendly as possible because there are always challenges when we do certain types of development.

[1:10:12] And I’ll just speak to the infills, just understanding our policies and sort of the understanding that we can all understand what is allowed and what is not, and then having appropriate flexibility. I am looking forward to having this zoning by-law come about and would like to see it here a little bit sooner than what is proposed, but I’m sure there’s a lot of work to be done. And with that, we can proceed to vote.

[1:10:47] Closing the vote, the motion carries. 5-0. On to our last item for direction. This is the zoning by-law amendment that has come back to committee. And I wonder if staff are here, just to give us a quick update. Yes, through the chair, this is Nicole musical for municipal compliance.

[1:11:22] I’m happy to provide an explanation in summary of the recommendation. Good evening committee members. This report is in response to the September 6th Council resolution directing staff to report back on the revised zoning by-law regulations relating to the removal of seasonal patio operational date restrictions and provide information on how the alcohol and gaming commission of Ontario regulates capacity for outdoor patios. Before I move on to staff’s recommendation, I would like to clarify the difference between permanent patios, seasonal patios, and patios located on city property.

[1:12:03] A permanent patio is expected to meet parking requirements through a zoning review. Often a company, a building permit application, a possible site plan application, and formal AGCO application processes. Permanent patios do not have associated date ranges and have a maximum capacity of 50% of the indoor capacity or 50 persons, whichever is greater. The second are the seasonal patios. Otherwise known as temporary patios or previously and informally as COVID patio regulations, which were added to the zoning by-law in March 2021.

[1:12:45] These are commonly those extra tables and chairs temporarily placed into parking spaces. The current date range for seasonal patios is mid-March to mid-November. And the capacity for seasonal patios was included as part of the permanent patio calculation at 50% of the indoor capacity or 50 persons, meaning that the current capacity for both permanent and seasonal patios is collectively 50% of the indoor capacity. Current regulations allow seasonal patios to temporarily occupy commercial parking spaces and are required to be set back six meters from all residential land uses.

[1:13:28] Seasonal patios are not subject to a formal review as long as they comply with section 4.186, which is the seasonal patio section of the zoning by-law. And then thirdly are the city property patios, where spaces permitted businesses through Realty Services Department may apply to obtain permissions to temporarily utilize city property for a patio arrangement between the months of March to October. Subject to individual review and approval by Realty Services, patios located on city property may also benefit from this evening’s recommendation.

[1:14:05] However, there may be some cases where patios will be required to be removed due to operational matters, mainly snow removal. As requested by committee, staff have reviewed AGCO regulations and found that there are both capacity and date range guidelines contained in the regulations associated with the Liquor License and Control Act, including that the capacity of seasonal patios must allow for at least 1.1 square meters per person and that the seasonal patio portion is limited to eight months of the calendar year.

[1:14:45] As a result, staff are suggesting the evaluation of section 4.186, which is the seasonal outdoor patios recommendation by recommending the three following amendments. Number one, removing references to specific months of operation for seasonal outdoor patios and align with the eight month regulation based on the Liquor License Control Act. So the current date range as it stands are specific to mid-March to mid-November. So the recommendation before you would permit businesses to choose to open their seasonal patios to a maximum of eight months of the calendar year regardless of the month.

[1:15:29] Number two, adding a capacity regulation for seasonal patios based on 1.1 square meters per person. So as I’ve mentioned, current regulations for both permanent and seasonal allow for a total of 50% of the license capacity, indoor capacity, or 50 persons, whichever is greater. This recommendation would maintain the 50% rule for the permanent patio portion and then add a new calculation for seasonal patios based on an area of 1.1 square meters per person, which again, would mainly be associated with those extra tables and chairs that have been placed into parking spaces over the last few years.

[1:16:11] The third portion of the amendment is adding to ensure that seasonal outdoor patios shall not be located within accessible parking spaces. So in summary, we are looking to recommend or add a 1.1 square meters per person calculation to the seasonal patio, which will provide guidelines and limitations in terms of extra occupants while allowing for greater flexibility for seasonal patios, or again, as I’ve referred to a few times as those extra tables and chairs.

[1:16:47] Secondly, amending the date range to a sliding annual scale, which will also provide for some flexibility and better align with the AGCO patio guidelines. Thank you very much for your time this evening and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much and I’ll go to committee members for any questions, comments. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. As one of the Councillors who brought forward the request to have these reviewed, I just want to say to Ms. Musico and those involved in this review, thank you very much for the work.

[1:17:27] To me, this is Bullseye. This is exactly what I was hoping to see come back and I’m happy to move the staff recommendation on this. I think it hits all the points that were raised in the last debate around this. And I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Layman. Any other comments from committee members? Councillor Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Ms. Musico. This is helpful. I think it helps clarify a lot of the questions we had at the last meeting.

[1:18:02] I guess I’m disappointed actually with what we found because it doesn’t have that breadth of permissives that we were looking for at the time. I think when we had the discussion, the last came to us, the AGCO and the Liquor Lice and Control Act is helpful and informative and really frames what we’re allowed to do in these circumstances. So I think that’s reasonable. I would have liked to have seen us have less regulation in this circumstance to be able to provide more latitude to operators.

[1:18:40] But given what we have, it sounds like we’re providing the greatest latitude that we can in this circumstance. Just for clarification, and I think it says it here a couple of times, but the 50% regulation is an AGCO thing. That’s not a local by-law component. Thank you, and through the chair, actually the 50% regulation of Councillor Turner is contained in our zoning by-law. It is a provision under section 4.18 under a capacity regulation that is applicable to all types of patios, whether or not it’s permanent or seasonal.

[1:19:24] Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. What’s the rationale for the 50%? Is this, I think when we discussed it a little bit, we talked a little bit about washroom facilities and things like that, but there’s other components to this that kind of dictates what the net capacity might be based on the amenities and facilities that would be available to the patrons of whatever that number would be. Thank you, and through the chair, that decision was kind of supersedes my time.

[1:20:00] So if it’s appropriate and possibly Mr. Kacoros can help me out with that one. I understand that he is obviously building division, but I’m wondering if he may have some background on the implementation or recommendation of that at that 50% contained in the zoning by-law. Mr. Kacoros, are you here? I’m just— Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I am here and through you, similar to Ms. Musico, that did precede my time with the city, I’ve been with the city 21 years.

[1:20:37] It is my understanding that there was some kind of reference to the fact that during the summer months that perhaps half of the capacity of the indoor space was not really utilized. Most people would prefer to sit outside and therefore the inside would have potentially 50% less capacity than perhaps during the winter months. But I can’t confirm that necessarily it’s more hearsay than an actual policy that I have read or come across. Councillor Turner.

[1:21:13] Thank you. So that becomes a little bit more interesting, I guess, because it seems like it may be a little arbitrary. 50% is a, I guess we call it terminal digit bias where you pick a number that’s rounded out at a flat number, like 50% or 30% or something like that. Rather than it having any anchoring in what the actual number would be, whether it’s 36% or 75%, 76%, right? Perhaps as part of our review of this and I think it’s reasonable for us to pass this so that we can provide some certainty to operators.

[1:21:56] Maybe it might make sense to ask staff as well to review and report back as to the rationale for this 50% number. I have concerns about it. There may very well be a reasonable explanation for why that number was chosen. But again, it seems arbitrary. It seems like it has the opportunity to be modernized, especially if it goes back a couple of decades. We may want to look at it with fresh eyes for updates to our policies.

[1:22:33] Through the chair, it’s Nicole, may I respond to that? Yes, please. I did certainly attempt to do my work to figure out an answer to that. I was unsuccessful. The general information that I found was pretty on par with what Mr. Kacuros had mentioned, but I’m most happy to look into this further. But I just wanted Committee to know that we didn’t overlook this. I did try to sort it out. But again, happy to report back.

[1:23:08] Ms. Musico, do you need a motion for that? Or I know we’re here to receive the zoning bylaw amendment. Yes, through the chair, I would suggest, well, we’re asking for the bylaw to be introduced. So if that’s something that Committee would like, I would recommend passing that in one part, and then possibly adding a second recommendation to refer staff to report back on any further information regarding section 4.18, subsection one of the zoning bylaw regarding the 50% capacity.

[1:23:51] So we can do this in two steps then. So a Councillor Turner, do you have a motion then? Yep, no, I think that’s appropriate. It’s what I was suggesting that to the bylaw, be a part A and the part B would be that we have, sorry, I just got distracted there for a second, and that part B would be that we request staff to review the rationale for the 50% capacity and explore any opportunities to update as appropriate and report back to Council.

[1:24:30] Hey, I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Lewis. And while we have the clerk put everything together, I would like to just make a couple of comments here and I’m a big fan of balance. And I’m really glad to see that a bit more work was done on this, extending the seasonal patio. I have a quick question around the eight months. I know we’ve got flexibility now.

[1:25:06] We’ve taken the dates from March to November out, but where does the eight months come from since there’s 12 months in the year? Through the chair, thank you. The eight months is a regulation contained in the liquor license and control act directly out of reference to their regulations. Thank you for that. So it is that number that it could be any time of the year and that’s where I think this by-law does a service to support the industry where it does make it flexible and aligns with different events or different opportunities that may be happening throughout the year as well.

[1:26:00] So I’m pleased that some work was done on this and I’m happy to support the amendment going back to staff to review and report back regarding the 50% as well to further explore the by-law. With that, can we proceed? I think it’s up, yes, for the sake of the public that’s listening in, if the clerk can please read it.

[1:26:43] The following actions be taken with respect to zoning regulations related to seasonal outdoor patios, part A, the proposed revised by-law as appended to the planning and environment committee added agenda, be introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on October 17th, 2022 to amend section 4.18 of the zoning by-law and part B, the civic administration be requested to report back at a future meeting with respect to the capacity limits and to explore any opportunities to update the limits as they relate to section 4.18 of the zoning by-law.

[1:27:27] We can fix that up a little bit as this comes back to council, but with that, it is moved and seconded and we can proceed to vote if there’s no further comments. I see none. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. And moving on to number five, different matters, additional business. The none, we do have a confidential and I would like to move in camera, looking for a motion to do so.

[1:28:11] Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Turner. We can proceed to vote. Recording in progress.

[1:29:30] We are back in session. I would like to turn to Vice Chair, Councillor Layman. I’ll report out the progress was made on the matter for which we went into confidential. With that, we will move on to adjournment. I want to thank the committee before I do so. I just want to remind everyone, we’ll be back here on Wednesday. And with that, I’m looking for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hellier.

[1:30:08] And vote, all those in favor. And the motion carries. Thanks, everyone.