Open Council

14th Meeting of City Council

Open Council

14th Meeting of City Council

October 17, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance, Councillors M. van Holst, M. Salih, J. Helmer and P. Van Meerbergen

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Councillor S. Hillier discloses a pecuniary interest in item 6 of the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee Report, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 1 on the list, by indicating that his family hosts a five day event.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

4.1     Litigation/Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, court file No. 2278/18 and 2278/18-A1 affecting the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, related to the Bradley Avenue West Extension and Wharncliffe Road South Improvements. (6.1/13/CWC)

4.2     Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.  (6.2/13/CWC)

4.3     Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to 2010 Dundas Street East, a location where an Adult Live Entertainment Parlour may operate under the City’s Business Licensing By-law L-6.  (6.1/11/CPSC)

4.4     Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/11/CPSC)

4.5     Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.3/11/CPSC)

4.6     Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.4/11/CPSC)

4.7     Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/16/PEC)

4.8     Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/14/SPPC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, in Closed Session, from 4:08 PM to 4:29 PM.

At 4:36 PM, Council resumes in public session, with all members in attendance.

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

5.1   13th Meeting held on September 27, 2022

2022-09-27 Council minutes

Motion made by J. Fyfe-Millar

Seconded by J. Helmer

That the Minutes of the 13th Meeting held on September 27, 2022, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the following communications BE RECEIVED, and BE REFERRED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.1     Adult Live Entertainment Parlour - 2010 Dundas Street - Deletion of Location

1.     K. Albert

6.2     Zoning Amendment to Permit a Pilot of Temporary Mobile Shelters

1.    Councillor M. Van Holst

6.3     ReThink Zoning Information Report

1.     M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute

6.4     Zoning By-law Amendment - Seasonal Outdoor Patios

1.     AM. Valastro

6.5     1156 Dundas Street

  1. C. Zaluski, Owner, McCormick Villages Inc. and S. Cornwell, Planner, Sierra Construction

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   13th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2022-10-04 CWC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 13th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2nd and 3rd Reports of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd and 3rd Reports of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meetings held on September 7, 2022 and September 21, 2022, respectively:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the ESACAC:

i)    the 1470-1474 Highbury Avenue Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration and the Planner BE REQUESTED to respond to the ESACAC questions; and

ii)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 to 5.5, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the 3rd Report of the ESACAC BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Emergency Repair of Incinerator Systems at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 4, 2022, related to the Emergency Repair of the Incinerator at the Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)    the purchase orders issued for emergency repairs to the incinerator and related systems at Greenway Wastewater Treatment Plant under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a projected total price of $178,483.91 (HST excluded), BE CONFIRMED;

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

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Short-Term Contract Amendment for EnviroDepot Operation and Management Program

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 4, 2022, related to a Short-Term Contract Amendment for EnviroDepot Operation and Management Program:

a)    the action taken by the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, in accordance with Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 4.3 d., BE RECOGNIZED; it being noted that the action taken is in the best interest for the safe and efficient operation of EnviroDepots during the fall season (2022) when use of the EnviroDepots is increased;

b)    the short-term amendment of the contract with Try Recycling Inc., for the provision of the EnviroDepot Operation and Management Program, in accordance with Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 20.3 e)i., BE APPROVED; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this Report and the contracts referenced herein. (2022-E07)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Dedicated Locator Model Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 363)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 4, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 to:

a)     adopt the Dedicated Locator Model Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, that establishes the terms and conditions Dedicated Locators must agree to when locating municipal services on behalf of the City; and,

b)      delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the authority to make minor amendments to the approved Dedicated Locate Model Agreement from time to time and is fully responsible for determining the terms and conditions in the above-noted Agreement, specific to each project and has the authority to approve and reject applications and execute and terminate Dedicated Locate Agreements on behalf of The Corporation of the City of London. (2022-L04A)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.1) 4th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC), from its meeting held on September 21, 2022:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC) Active Transportation Sub-Committee:

i)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consult with the ITCAC during all “Advisory Committee Consultation Phases” of the Mobility Master Plan process and identify specific areas of the process where the ITCAC may provide its input, expertise and support to the Mobility Master Plan Project Team and/or the Community Engagement Panel; and,

ii)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to consult with the ITCAC during the development of the proposed draft by-law related to E-Scooters;

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 to 3.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List as at September 26, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (5.2) Greenway and Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plants Climate Change Resiliency Detailed Design Consultant Award

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 4, 2022, related to the Greenway and Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plants Climate Change Resiliency Detailed Design Consultant Award:

a)    CIMA Canada Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers in the amount of $2,104,213.00, including 10% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2022-E03)

Motion Passed

8.2   11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2022-10-04 CPSC Report

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That Items 1 to 4 of the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Hillier disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5.1 of this Report, having to do with the Deferred Matters List, specifically item number 1 on the list, by indicating that his family hosts a five day event.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 22, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 22, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated October 4, 2022, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022, to approve the potential demolition of the abandoned buildings located at 421 Wharncliffe Road South, 254 Hamilton Road and 7234 Littlewood Drive and the properties may be cleared of all identified buildings, structures, debris and refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and the Ontario Building Code Act. (2022-P10D)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (3.1) Adult Live Entertainment Parlour - 2010 Dundas Street - Deletion of Location

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 4, 2022, with respect to the Adult Live Entertainment Parlour located at 2010 Dundas Street – Deletion of Location:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide the Community and Protective Services Committee with future status update reports with respect to licence applications for adult entertainment parlour locations;

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

c)    the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from W. Goldsmith and J. Dunn, London Abused Women’s Centre, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    W. Goldsmith, London Abused Women’s Centre; and,

  •    J. Dunn, London Abused Women’s Centre. (2022-P09)

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.2.6   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at September 226, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Motion to approve Item 1 of the Deferred Matters List.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by M. Cassidy

Motion to approve the balance of the Deferred Matters List.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.7   (5.2) Councillor M. Van Holst - Zoning Amendment to Permit a Pilot of Temporary Mobile Shelters

Motion made by M. Cassidy

That the communication, dated September 30, 2022, from Councillor M. van Holst, with respect to a zoning amendment to permit a pilot of temporary mobile shelters, BE RECEIVED. (2022-S11)

Motion made by M. van Holst

Seconded by E. Peloza

That clause 5.2 BE AMENDED by adding the following:

“b)    that Staff BE DIRECTED to initiate a review of the zoning by-law to consider temporary mobile shelters at places of worship.”

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the communications from Councillor M. van Holst, as well as the proposed amendment to the clause BE REFERRED to the ongoing ReThink Zoning process, in order to consider the use of temporary mobile shelters, including on lands zoned for places of worship.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.3   13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2022-10-03 CSC Report 13

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 13th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Appointments and Updates to the Joint Venture Management Committee for the 4-Pad Arena Complex (Relates to Bill No. 362)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Joint Venture Management Committee for the 4-Pad Arena Complex:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the October 17, 2022 meeting of the Municipal Council to amend By-law No. A.-6567-226 being a by-law to approve the appointment of the City’s representatives to the Joint Venture Management Committee for the 4-Pad Arena Complex located on Western Fair Association (WFA) lands; and,

b)    the Western Fair Association’s Chief Executive Officer, and the Director of Racing along with their Director of Corporate Services as an alternative representative BE APPROVED as Western Fair Association’s nominees to the Joint Venture Management Committee.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Economic Abuse Awareness Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the application from Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment, November 26, 2022 with respect to Economic Abuse Awareness Day BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Children’s Grief Awareness Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the application dated August 25, 2022 from Rainbows For All Children Canada, November 17, 2022 with respect to National Children’s Grief Awareness Day, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (5.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Treaties Recognition Week

Motion made by S. Lewis

That based on the application dated September 22, 2022 from Oneida Nation of the Thames, November 6 - 12, 2022 BE PROCLAIMED Treaties Recognition Week.

Motion Passed

8.4   16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-10-03 PEC REPORT

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.3   (2.2) 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.4   (2.3) 3924 and 4138 Colonel Talbot Road - Heathwoods - Phase 5 (39T-12503)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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)    the 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

8.4.5   (2.4) Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 870 Queens Avenue, Old East Heritage Conservation District

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the 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

8.4.6   (2.5) 634 Commissioners Road West (Z-9541)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.7   (3.1) 2810 Roxburgh Road (Z-9525) (Relates to Bill No. 374)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.8   (3.2) 16 Wethered Street (Z-9309) (Relates to Bill No. 375)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 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; and,

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

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

8.4.9   (3.3) 850 Highbury Avenue North

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.10   (3.4) 185 and 189 Wellington Street

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.11   (4.1) ReThink Zoning Information Report - Update and Sample Place Type Zones

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.4.12   (4.2) Zoning By-law Amendment - Seasonal Outdoor Patios (Relates to Bill No. 376)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.5   17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2022-10-05 PEC Report 17 with Revised By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That Items 1, 2 and  4 of the 17th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (3.1) 7098-7118 Kilborne Road (39CD-19518) (Relates to Bill No.’s 366 and 377)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Bluestone Properties Inc., relating to the properties located at 7098-7118 Kilbourne Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 to amend the Official Plan (The London Plan) to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, Section 20.5.7 (Lambeth Neighbourhood) to add a special policy to permit a minimum density of 6.4 units per hectare on the site (whereas a minimum density of 15 units per hectare is required);

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022 as Appendix “C” 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 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Residential R1 (R1-8), Environmental Review (ER), Open Space (OS4),  a Holding Open Space (h-2*OS4), and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R6 (R6-1(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting relating the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium relating to the property located at 7098-7118 Kilbourne Road; and,

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application relating to the property located at 7098-7118 Kilbourne Road:

i)    the type and quality of fencing to be installed;

ii)    inquiring if the lighting will be overhead or lower lighting; and,

iii)    garbage collection;

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

  •    C. Wiebe, MHBC Planning; and,

  •    P. Davison, 3919 Stacey Crescent;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  •    the proposed amendments conform to the former in-force policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Low Density Residential and Open Space policies;

  •    the proposed amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhood Place Type and Green Space policies;

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

  •    the subject lands are located in close proximity to arterial roads, surrounding services and access to the Dingman Creek which provides pedestrian movements north and south along the Dingman Creek Corridor.  (2022-D07)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (3.3) 1033 Dundas Street (Z-9513) (Relates to Bill No. 379)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning & Development, based on the application by Drygas Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 1033 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 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 (The London Plan 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial (BDC) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-()*BDC()) Zone;

 

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

  •    a communication dated October 3, 2022, from T. Brydges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    T. Brydges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages intensification, redevelopment, and a compact form in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. The amendment will provide for a range of housing types and densities within the area to meet projected requirements of current and future residents, by promoting a land use pattern, density, and a mix of uses that serve to minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support the development of viable choices and plans for public transit and other alternative transportation modes;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies, to facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the 1989 Official Plan, including but not limited to the Main Street Commercial Corridor (MSCC); 

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.   (2022-D02)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (3.2) 4452 Wellington Road South (OZ-9497) (Relates to Bill No.’s 367 and 378)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by MHBC Planning, on behalf of 2858637 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 4452 Wellington Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 to amend The London Plan to:

i)    change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Shopping Area Place Type TO a Light Industrial Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types; and,

ii)    amend section 1565_5 of the Official Plan (The London Plan), List of Secondary Plans - Southwest Area Secondary Plan, by changing the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM Commercial TO Industrial on Schedule 4, Southwest Area Land Use Plan, and Schedule 17, Wellington Rd/Hwy 401 Land Use Designations; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022 as Appendix “B” 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, (The London Plan 2016) as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Associated Shopping Area Commercial (h-17ASA1/ASA2/ASA6) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI6) Zone, and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone;

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;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Industrial Place Type, Shopping Area Place Types, and Natural Heritage Features and Hazards;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan and the 1989 Official Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Wellington Road/ Highway 401 Neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will delineate a natural heritage feature and ensure the appropriate environmental studies are completed.   (2022-D21)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lehman

That consideration of Item 3 (3.2) BE REFERRED back to the Planning and Environment Committee in order to facilitate an additional public participation meeting; it being noted that a broader circulation of notice for the PPM meeting is required.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

8.5.5   (3.4) 366 Hill Street (Z-9511) (Relates to Bill No. 380)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Drygas Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 1033 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 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 (The London Plan 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial (BDC) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-()*BDC()) Zone;

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

  •    a project fact sheet from J. Smolarek, siv-ik;

 

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

  •    J. Smolarek, siv-ik;

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law 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 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 all other applicable London Plan policies;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the  Old Victoria Hospital Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Rise residential policies; and,

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

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Fyfe-Millar

That clause 3.4 BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of 366 Hill Street Inc. relating to the property located at 366 Hill Street, the proposed by-law hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on October 17, 2022 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-1) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

  • a project fact sheet from J. Smolarek, siv-ik;

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

  • J. Smolarek, siv-ik;

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

  • the recommended Zoning By-law 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 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 all other applicable London Plan policies;

-  the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of the  Old Victoria Hospital Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Low-Rise residential policies; and,

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

Clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.6   (3.5) 1156 Dundas Street (39T-21508 / Z-9524 / O-9545) (Relates to Bill No.’s 368, 381 and 382)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by McCormick Villages Inc., relating to lands located at 1156 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 to amend the Official Plan (The London Plan), relating to the McCormick Area Secondary Plan to revise Schedule 1 “Community Structure Plan” to remove two segments of the “Potential Connection” delineation extending west from Sparton Street between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard and extending west from Osborne Street between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard, and to add a new segment of the “Potential Connection” between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard; to revise policy 20.8.2.2 to include wording such that “opportunities should be explored to create new public connections to increase the walkability of the area”, and “the creation of other east-west local streets as public connections, either in the form of public streets or public pathways, are also ideal opportunities to provide new linkages when sites redevelop”; and to revise Schedule 3 “Street Hierarchy” to remove one segment of the “Future Publicly Accessible Connection” delineation extending west from Osborne Street between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard, and to add a new segment of the “Future Publicly Accessible Connection” between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard;

b)    the proposed, attached, by-law (Appendix “C”) 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 (The London Plan 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-204-h-205-BDC2(11)-D150-H35) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-R6-5(41)) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-R6-5(41)-H15) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (h-67-h-202-h-203-h-205-R1-2) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-204-h-205-h-   -BDC2(11)-D150-H35) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-h-   -h-   -R6-5(41)-H13.5) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-h-   -h-   -R6-5(41)-H15) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-202-h-203-h-205-h-   -h-   -R4-3(  )) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application submitted by McCormick Villages Inc., relating to the lands located at 1156 Dundas Street;

i)    the development should be six storeys;

ii)    the walkway should be considered parkland;

iii)    the residential stakeholders are being ignored;

iv)    the north lot was previously approved as low-density single family and is now being zoned townhouses and medium density;

v)    request development go from low-density to medium density to high density; and,

vi)    lack of public consultation on the proposed development;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by McCormick Villages Inc. (Project No. 180204), certified by Terry Dietz O.L.S., dated September 21, 2021 and revised September 2022, as red-line amended, which shows 1 medium density/commercial block, 3 medium density blocks, 1 park block, 1 future road block, 1 road widening block, 1 road realignment block, and 3 reserve blocks, served by 1 new street (Gleeson Street), SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix ‘D’ appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022; and,

e)    the proposed attached, by-law (Appendix “D”) 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 (The London Plan 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property to amend the zoning on Block 3 of the proposed draft plan of subdivision from a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-R6-5(41)-H15) Zone to a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-R6-5(41)-D150) Zone to permit a maximum height of five storeys and a maximum density of 150 units per hectare;

f)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, no further notice BE GIVEN;

 

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

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    S. Cornwell, on behalf of the applicant;

  •    M. Kay;

  •    J. Fisher, 818 Elias Street;

  •    C. Murphy, 269 Taylor Street; and,

  •    J. Dombrowskis, Extendicare;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type and the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Transit Oriented designation, Mid-Rise Residential designation and the Low-Rise Residential designation;

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan, and the McCormick Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended Draft Plan is focused on the restoration and adaptive re-use of the former McCormick’s Factory into a mid-rise mixed use building.  The recommended Draft Plan also supports a mix of housing types within the site including street townhouses, a long-term care facility and a seniors’ apartment building. The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve the adaptive re-use of a significant, heritage designated former industrial building and a future development pattern that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community. The Applicant will providing a publicly accessible multi-use pathway to allow for interior and exterior connectivity to the site. The Applicant will enter into a public use agreement with the City.   (2022-D12)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Helmer

That Item 6 (3.5) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by McCormick Villages Inc., relating to lands located at 1156 Dundas Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 to amend The Official Plan, (The London Plan), relating to the McCormick Area Secondary Plan to revise Schedule 1 “Community Structure Plan” to remove two segments of the “Potential Connection” delineation extending west from Sparton Street between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard and extending west from Osborne Street between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard, and to add a new segment of the “Potential Connection” between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard; to revise policy 20.8.2.2 to include wording such that “opportunities should be explored to create new public connections to increase the walkability of the area”, and “the creation of other east-west local streets as public connections, either in the form of public streets or public pathways, are also ideal opportunities to provide new linkages when sites redevelop”; and to revise Schedule 3 “Street Hierarchy” to remove one segment of the “Future Publicly Accessible Connection” delineation extending west from Osborne Street between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard, and to add a new segment of the “Future Publicly Accessible Connection” between Ashland Avenue and McCormick Boulevard;

b) the proposed, revised, attached, by-law (Appendix “C”) 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 (The London Plan 2016)), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-204-h-205-BDC2(11)-D150-H35) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-R6-5(41)) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-5-h-67-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-R6-5(41)-H15) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 (h-67-h-202-h-203-h-205-R1-2) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Holding Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-204-h-205-h_-BDC2(11)-D150-H35) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-h--h--R6-5(41)-H13.5) Zone, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-120-h-149-h-203-h-204-h-205-h--h--R6-5(41)-D150-H18) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-h-5-h-100-h-202-h-203-h-205-h--h--R4-3(  )) Zone, and an Open Space (OS1) Zone, it being noted that this rezoning will permit a maximum height of 18 metres and a maximum density of 150 units per hectare on Block 3 of the proposed draft plan of subdivision;

c) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the Site Plan Approval application submitted by McCormick Villages Inc., relating to the lands located at 1156 Dundas Street;

i) the development should be six storeys;

ii) the walkway should be considered parkland;

iii) the residential stakeholders are being ignored;

iv) the north lot was previously approved as low-density single family and is now being zoned townhouses and medium density;

v) request development go from low-density to medium density to high density; and,

vi) lack of public consultation on the proposed development;

d) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of subdivision as submitted by McCormick Villages Inc. (Project No. 180204), certified by Terry Dietz O.L.S., dated September 21, 2021 and revised September 2022, as red-line amended, which shows 1 medium density/commercial block, 3 medium density blocks, 1 park block, 1 future road block, 1 road widening block, 1 road realignment block, and 3 reserve blocks, served by 1 new street (Gleeson Street), SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix ‘D’ appended to the staff report dated October 5, 2022; and,

e) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, no further notice BE GIVEN;

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

the staff presentation;

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

S. Cornwell, on behalf of the applicant;

  • M. Kaye;

J. Fisher, 818 Elias Street;

C. Murphy, 269 Taylor Street; and,

J. Dombrowskis, Extendicare;

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

the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  • the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and zoning conforms to the in-force polices of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, Neighbourhoods Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

  •           the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type and the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •           the proposed and recommended amendments conform to the in-force policies of the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Transit Oriented designation, Mid-Rise Residential designation and the Low-Rise Residential designation;

  •           the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan, and the McCormick Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •           the recommended Draft Plan is focused on the restoration and adaptive re-use of the former McCormick’s Factory into a mid-rise mixed use building.  The recommended Draft Plan also supports a mix of housing types within the site including street townhouses, a long-term care facility and a seniors’ apartment building. The Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve the adaptive re-use of a significant, heritage designated former industrial building and a future development pattern that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community. The Applicant will providing a publicly accessible multi-use pathway to allow for interior and exterior connectivity to the site. The Applicant will enter into a public use agreement with the City.   (2022-D12)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That clause 3.5, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6   14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2022-10-11 SPPC Report 14

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 14th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) 2022 Service Review Initiatives Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with the concurrence of the City Manager, the staff report dated October 11, 2022 regarding the 2022 Services Review Initiatives Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on September 26, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (3.1) Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 365, 369 and 370)

Motion made by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to Fees and Charges:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 11, 2022 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 for the purpose of repealing By-law No. A-57, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges”, and replacing it with a new Fees and Charges By-law that adds and adjusts certain fees and charges for services or activities provided by the City of London;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 11, 2022 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 for the purpose of amending By-law No. L.-130-71, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the licensing, regulating and governing of vehicles for hire, including cabs, accessible cabs, limousines, private vehicles for hire and accessible vehicles for hire, owners and brokers” to delete all occurrences of the phrase “Schedule 5 of this By-law, and to replace it with the phrase “the City’s Fees and Charges By-law, as it is amended or repealed and replaced from time to time”; and,

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 11, 2022 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2022 for the purpose of amending By-law No. L.-131-16, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” to delete all occurrences of the phrase “Schedule 1 of this By-law, and to replace it with the phrase “the City’s Fees and Charges By-law, as it is amended or repealed and replaced from time to time”;

it being noted that no individuals made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (3.2) London Small Business Centre - Annual Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from S. Pellarin, Executive Director, London Small Business Centre.

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (3.3) TechAlliance - Annual Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from C. Fox, CEO, TechAlliance.

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (3.4) London Economic Development Corporation - Annual Update

Motion made by J. Morgan

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from K. Lakhotia, President and CEO, London Economic Development Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (4.1) Consideration of Appointments to the Striking Committee

Motion made by J. Morgan

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Striking Committee:

Paul Seale - Pillar Non-Profit Network

Morena Hernandez - Urban League of London

Patti Dalton - London and District Labour Council

Graham Henderson - London Chamber of Commerce

Zeba Hashmi - Former Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Advisory Committee

Anoushka - Citizen-at-Large

it being noted that the Striking Committee will proceed with the above-noted membership, notwithstanding the vacant citizen-at-large positions.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   13th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by M. Hamou

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the 13th Report of the Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED, as follows:

  1.    That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, matter pertaining to litigation currently before the Superior Court of Justice, court file No. 2278/18 and 2278/18-A1 affecting the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, related to the Bradley Avenue West Extension and Wharncliffe Road South Improvements. (6.1/13/CWC);

  2.    That progress was made with respect to Item 4.2, a matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.  (6.2/13/CWC); and,

  3.    That progress was made with respect to Item 4.3, a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to 2010 Dundas Street East, a location where an Adult Live Entertainment Parlour may operate under the City’s Business Licensing By-law L-6.  (6.1/11/CPSC); and,

  4.    That progress was made with respect to Items 4.4 to 4.6, matters pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List, Accessibility, Age Friendly and Arts categories respectively. (6.2, 6.3 and 6.4/11/CPSC); and,

  5.    That progress was made with respect to Item 4.7, a matter pertaining to personal matters about identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/16/PEC); and,

  6.    That progress was made with respect to Item 4.8, a matter pertaining to personal matters about identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/14/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enquires with respect to groups of homeless individuals relocating to London, in an organized manner.  The Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development responds by indicating that narrative is difficult to substantiate.  Councillor P. Van Meerbergen further enquires with respect to potential actions that the City may be able to take to mitigate any substantiated claims.  The Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development indicates that in event of any such actions, the City would look to re-establish individuals with their home municipality.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Turner

That introduction and first reading of Bill No.’s 361 to the revised Bill No. 381, excluding Bill No.’s 367 and 378, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by M. Hamou

That second reading of Bill No.’s 361 to the revised Bill No. 381, excluding Bill No.’s 367 and 378, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by J. Helmer

Seconded by M. Cassidy

That third reading and enactment of Bill No.’s 361 to the revised Bill No. 381, excluding Bill No.’s 367 and 378, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Turner

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:10 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 4 minutes)

[14:43] Welcome to the 14th meeting of City Council. And I would call on Councillor Van Mirbergen to provide the land acknowledgement, please. Thank you, Mayor. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Ashinanabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenna Peiwak, and Adawandaan peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum belt treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Silver Covenant chain, the Beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1786, the Huron track treaty of 1827 with the Ashinanabek and the Dish with one spoon covenant Wampum of the Ashinanabek and Haudenosaunee.

[15:46] The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewa of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Thank you, Councillor. Colleagues, we are grateful to Corey Crossman for arranging at every council meeting person who will lead us in the scene of a candidate today. We are delighted that Jason Mercer is joining us.

[16:22] Jason has played and performed music as a singer-songwriter for over a decade with the London-based artist’s latest release, Nobody But You, set to hit streaming platforms Friday, October 30th. Feels like a bit of a, we’re a bit of a showman for Mr. Mercer, drawing inspiration from the harmony rich sound of the Eagles and the storytelling lyricism of Tom Petty. Jason holds himself to a high standard, creating music with meaning and songs that continue to mirror everything from memories to feelings, conversations, personal life experiences.

[16:57] We’ll ask Jason to come forward at this time to lead us in the singing of O Canada. I would invite you all to stand, please. ♪ An alternative land ♪ ♪ Hatred love in us ♪ ♪ Come back with glorts ♪ ♪ We see the rise ♪ ♪ The true, no strong and free ♪ ♪ Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for ♪ ♪ Keep our lives and free ♪ ♪ Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ Ladies and gentlemen, Jason Mercer.

[19:17] So I used to sing like that, never. And that was a tremendous rendition of O Canada. And I thank Jason very much for his contribution. Colleagues, for the benefit of our audience viewing today, we invite you to please check the city’s website for additional meeting detail and details. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city’s website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request and to make a request specific to this meeting.

[19:53] Please contact council agenda at London.ca or five, one, nine, six, six, one, two, four, eight, nine, extension, two, four, two, five. Colleagues, I’m gonna look for any disclosures of your interest. I apologize, I normally say screens on for the benefit of all who are in the interland and not in council chambers. So can I ask you please, Colleagues, screens on? As I know the clerk will wanna confirm quorum. And confirm quorum, your worship.

[20:36] Thank you very much. And this is our tradition. If people aren’t at chambers, we like to let all colleagues be aware of that. Do we have anyone who has not been able to join us for attendance tonight, Clerk? Through the chair, we’ve been not been notified of anybody who will not be in attendance. Thanks very much. We have one recognition I will call on. Councillor Humu, please. Thank you. This weekend, London hosted folk music Ontario over the weekend, sorry, that’s twice, with 600 plus delegates plus over 150 additional artists, performances and 30 panel discussions.

[21:20] We wanna thank both music Ontario for the great weekend we had. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Humu. I’m not aware of any confidential matters to be considered in public. And for the benefit of our viewing public, we are about to go into closed session. And I will ask the clerk in just a moment to advise the reasons for which we will be doing so. But on that basis, I’ll be looking for a mover and a seconder to go into closed session, moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[21:58] Thank you very much. Can you advise us, Clerk, the reasons that we are going into a confidential session? Yes, Your Worship. There are eight matters total indicated on the public agenda. One matter relating to litigation currently before the spirit court of justice litigation and solicitor client privilege. Another solicitor client privilege matter related to 2010 Dundas Street East. And there are six matters related to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2023 Mayor’s New Year’s Honors list.

[22:34] Thank you for that. With that, I will call the vote. Councillor van Neerberg and Councillor van Holst. Oh, yeah.

[23:13] Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thanks very much public. We are going to be dealing with those matters in closed session and returning back into public session thereafter. So your screen will be like the Twilight Zone for just a little bit of time. Thank you. Recording stopped.

[28:40] Please can ask for screens on, please. Please be seated. Feel a bit like Judge Judy when I do this.

[29:15] You know, it just feels a little strange. Welcome back to the public session and what I will look for is a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on September 27, 2022 for that I’ll look for a mover Councillor. Five millers seconded by. I’m sorry, Councillor Helmarte, did you second? Thank you very much. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will call the question, but not by a show of hands. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[30:08] Thank you very much. Five items under communications and petitions. And in a moment, I’ll look for them all to be moved into their appropriate committees. 6.1 deals with an adult live entertainment parlor, 2010 Dundas Street, deletion of location. The second is a zoning amendment to permit a pilot of temporary mobile shelters. The third is a rethink zoning information report update and sample place type zones. The fourth is a zoning by-law amendment dealing with seasonal outdoor patios.

[30:44] And the fifth deals with 1156 Dundas Street. And I’ll look for a motion to refer them to the above appropriate committee reports. Councillor Hillier’s seconded by Councillor van Merberg. And thank you very much. We’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. There are which notice has been given which moves us into our committee reports.

[31:17] And the first is the 13th report of civic works. I’ll call on Councillor Palazzo, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I have been given no notice to apply anything separate. Thanks very much. Does anyone wish to have any items within civic works voted on separately? Councillor Palazzo. Thank you. I’ll put the entirety of all eight items of the 13th report of civic works committee on the floor. Highlights from this round include 2.3, the short-term contract amendment for environment deposed operation and management program at both the Clark Road and Oxford locations.

[31:54] This was to add more staff on temporarily until it comes back in the next budget cycle. For this, we’ll have an increase in health and safety of the workers in regard, and in addition to servicing the public quicker as they come through that due to higher rate of recycling at the deposed, which is wonderful. The dedicated locator model agreement is in response to bill 93 that we must comply with. And I would just also note that I’m 2.2 is accommodated within the capsule budget for the Greenway wastewater treatment repair at the plant.

[32:32] And 4.1 was the transfer integrated transport advisory committee asking for a staff to come out and consult more with them on the master mobility plan, which they are more than happy to do as it’s still open for public comment as well. Thanks very much, do colleagues have any comments or questions with regard to any items on the 13th and 4th of Civic Works? I see none. So with that, we will call the question. Close in the vote.

[33:11] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Close in. Thank you, that concludes the 13th report of the Civic Works Committee. Thanks very much now. For the 11th report of community protective services, I’ll call on Councillor Cassidy, please. Thank you, Your Worship, to pull items D3, 4, and sorry. I’m on the wrong report, 5, 6, and 7 on the council agenda, which are 3.1, 5.1, and 5.2 on the committee report. So noted, thanks very much.

[33:45] Does anyone wish to have any other items voted on separate to Councillor Cassidy? Thank you. So I will put the entire report on the floor, except for 5, 6, and 7. Comments or questions from colleagues? Councillor Van Holst on one through four. Thank you, Your Worship, just a question through you to our staff, relating to the demolitions. I do want to thank committee for supporting one on Hamilton Road.

[34:23] There’s a derelict building that did become quite problematic and its removal would be helpful. I would note that there are a number of other buildings along that aged corridor that people are concerned about. For instance, I KFC there that I don’t think will return to its glory days, but my question to you is, what’s the process that gets Council and our staff from the recognition of such a building through to a demolition, just so that people understand it?

[35:03] Why don’t we try, Mr. Mathers, for some response? Through you, Your Worship. So firstly, the city has a vacant building by-law, and that sets up the regulation of vacant buildings. The city maintains a vacant building list, which is an requirement of this by-law, and we work with putting items on that list with fire prevention. The buildings are identified by complaint for the most part, but we also have an active enforcement that’s supported by the fire department. Buildings are then, once they’re on the list, these buildings, they’re the only one we’ll receive and notice, that notice will ask for contact information insurance and a floor plan.

[35:41] If they don’t submit this information, then we go through the administrative and monetary penalty process, and it probably standards violations continue without any action and staff report to Council will be providing that request in the motion. Answer your question, Councilor Unhost. Yes, very succinctly. I appreciate it, my thanks to our staff for that. Thank you, any other comments or questions from colleagues? I see none with that. We will call the question on items one through four. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[36:25] Thanks very much, Councilor Cass. That brings us to item five, which is the adult live entertainment parlor, and I was a three-part recommendation from committee that civic administration be directed to provide the CAHPS committee with future status update reports with respect to license applications for these locations that the report be received, and that communications be received. We did have two presenters from London Abuse Women’s Center also give some information to committee at that time. Thanks very much, comments or questions?

[37:03] Councilor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. Colle’s OB as brief as I can here. I’m gonna encourage you, because this is a recommendation from committee at Council, I’m gonna encourage you to defeat this so an alternate recommendation can be put on the floor. And I’m gonna share with colleagues that, and the recommendation would be similar to what Councilor Humu moved at committee, but did not have a second or four at that point in time, which would be to delete the zoning location, but not the license at this time.

[37:37] And I’m gonna share with colleagues that since the community protective services meeting, I’ve gone out to the site of this former adult entertainment parlor. The owner has made significant investments in his property to clean up what had a reputation of being a rundown, not great place motel into something that has now met the requirements to get a franchise E agreement in place with travel lodge. They’ve completely renovated their kitchen and restaurant facility.

[38:13] They’re in the process of renovating what used to be the adult entertainment portion of the property into a banquet hall. They put a quite a deal of work and time and financial investment into this property. The owner was really clear with me. He has no intention of having an adult entertainment parlor reopen on site. He’s trying to make this a family friendly destination at an affordable rate for people who are visiting our city, whether they’re here for a hockey tournament or a baseball tournament or they’re here visiting family. That’s the market that he’s trying to move this location into, I want to underline for colleagues that if we decide to remove the location from the zoning bylaw, that no way requires us to leading a license at this time.

[39:01] We do realize that there was an application to move the license to a location downtown on Dundas Place. Council said no to that, but the license is still in its appeal period. So they could still bring forward an appeal on that. But I think it’s important for colleagues to recognize this license expired 10 months ago. The license holder has not sought to renew it. It expired in January of 2022 and has not been renewed. So we have an expired license that was seeking a move and we can’t actually move.

[39:35] They had to apply for a zoning for a new location, but they wanted to have that license hopefully transferred to another location, both the license holder and the owner of the property know that this location in Dundas Street East is not going to operate as an adult entertainment parlor again. So I would encourage colleagues to defeat this. And if that’s done, then I will put forward the alternate recommendation that at this time we’ll use three licenses, but only leaves two zoning applications or two zoning approved areas for these at this time. Should the owner wish to seek an alternate location for that third license?

[40:10] They will have to bring that forward through a planning application as appropriate. Thank you, Councilor. Are there comments or questions? Councilor Halmer, go ahead, please. I wanna make sure I understand what Councilor Lewis is proposing because he was talking about locations for these adult entertainment parlors and a couple of times he referred to the zoning by-law. And I guess my question through you to city staff is these locations we’re talking about they’re set out in the business licensing by-law, right?

[40:49] Not the zoning by-law. Let’s ask Mr. Mathers. Your worship on that is correct. They are highlighted in the business licensing. Okay, so that’s a good question. I think for Councilor Lewis because he’s talking about a future motion that he wants to put on the floor is the intention of that motion is to delete the location from the schedule in the business licensing by-law. I just wanna clarify that that’s what you’re intending to put on the floor now.

[41:23] Not something about the zoning by-law. Let’s ask Councillor Lewis his intent. Thank you. And yes, thank you, Councilor Halmer. I did miss speak when I said the zoning by-law. I should have said the business licensing by-law, but yes, that is exactly my intention. Thank you, Councillor Halmer. Okay, having clear on my dad, I certainly appreciate where the Councilor is coming from. And I think it’s difficult given the related matters that are underway to act at this time. And I understand why he wants to move ahead right now.

[41:59] I think the wisest course of action is to wait. And if we’re going to remove a location from the business licensing by-law that we do it at a future point in time. Not to say that one way or the other, whether this should be a location. It seems like given the circumstances on the ground that the current owner of this property doesn’t want it to be an adult entertainment parlor. So I think we’re not really in a situation where waiting is going to be hugely problematic. And I think it would be helpful overall. So I’m not going to support this alternative approach at this point, given when the Councilor mends, I guess I might not be around to support it at any point, but I’m happy to pass the recommendation that’s on the floor from committee right now.

[42:44] I think that’s the most prudent thing to do given circumstances. Thank you, Councillor Turner. I thank you, Your Worship. Councillor Helmer addressed the points I was going to raise. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from colleagues? I see none. We have a, oh, pardon me, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Your Worship. And perhaps through you too, the Councillor, in his discussions with the property owner, did they have a timeline for when they thought their renovations would be finished?

[43:20] And we would see what actually, what became of the property? I’ll have the Councillor respond to the Councillor those. Thank you, Your Worship. In brief, the response to that is, no, as the Councilor may imagine, both in the private sector as well as what we’ve experienced in the public sector, supply chains are a little less than reliable right now, as is some of the scheduled contract labor. So they’re already actually a little bit behind where they would like to be.

[43:52] I can’t speak to when they can have that finished. Anything else, Councillor Vanholst? I don’t think Your Worship, I might have been helpful to have a communication from the owners to this regard, but I don’t have a further question. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions from colleagues? I see none with that. There’s a three part motion on the floor. We’ll call the question. Opposed in the vote.

[44:49] Motion carries, nine to six. Thanks very much, Councillor Cassidy. It brings us to the deferred matters list, and there’s a conflict on the first item of the deferred matters list, and generally what we’ve been doing is calling that separately, so the member with the conflict can vote separately. So we know that we can do that. I think you’re looking then for a motion to receive deferred item matter number one on the deferred matters list. I’ll follow your format from your committee, if that’s all right.

[45:21] Thank you, Your Worship, yes. Thanks very much, Clerk. You have a comment, you have many often, but what’s your comment now? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do note that there was a conflict declared at the committee meeting, but there has not been one declared this evening, so. Well, then I will look to see if any Councillor would like to declare a conflict on any items in the deferred matters list. I see Councillor Hillier. Yes, I needed to declare a conflict on 5.1 the deferred matters list number one, as my family puts on events in the park, but Mr. Cassidy picked it up before me.

[45:55] Thank you. Good, I may well have presumed that because that is when you’re omniscient as a chair, you get to figure these things through, but thank you for declaring the conflict. Therefore, I’ll look to you, Councillor Cassidy, that we receive item number one on the deferred matters list to be received. Are you comfortable with that? Yes, sir. Thanks very much, with that we will, oh, I beg your pardon, any comments or questions? Been moved by the chair of the committee? We’ll call the question. Close in the vote.

[46:38] Motion carries 14 to zero with one recused. Thanks very much, Councillor Cassidy. The remaining items on the deferred matters list. Any comments or questions with respect to the balance of the deferred items? Seeing none, we will call the question. Councillor Lewis.

[47:27] Sure, if that has gone in, I’ve submitted three times, but we’ll take a verbal, I will vote, yay, thank you. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, your worship, the final item is number seven or 5.2 from the committee report. It was a submission from Councillor Van Holst and the committee received a submission. I’ll put that on the floor. Thanks very much, comments or questions. I see Councillor Van Holst.

[47:59] Thank you, Your Worship. And I appreciate the discussion at committee. And it really revolved around the possibility of a broader motion. So I have two things here in my most recent commission, the communication involve the temporary mobile shelters, which you’ve seen the community has produced. Two years ago, we had the option of doing a pilot on this staff suggestion was that we didn’t need to because we were moving forward with a housing first model.

[48:41] However, who would have known that two years later, there just simply isn’t housing to put such people with needs in. So these temporary mobile shelters are again a possibility. And I think something that we need to address to allow for the zoning for that. So of the two motions, the second, the most broader here in B is that staff be directed to initiate a review of the zoning bylaw to consider temporary mobile shelters at places of worship.

[49:18] So we know that there’s a number of such places that would be interested in helping a small number of people and this review might help us figure out how to make such assistance compliant with our bylaws. The second one is the more site-specific motion. We know that arcade mission, as you can see in the photo provided with my email communication there, they have some of these shelters ready to house someone.

[49:55] And however, they want to make sure that they were allowed to do so. And this particular motion would do a couple of things. One is begin the process of a city-led zoning amendment to allow a pilot for a couple of winters to see how these can best work for the community. And the other part of it staff tells me is that should we begin this, then they would not go with enforcement on them if the review that’s taking place decides against them.

[50:40] So there will be for sure an opportunity for that group to house some people and even more importantly, work out the bugs, if you will, of how to make those work. And of course, the last thing I want to point out is that these kinds of shelters are things that can be easily used by other communities and specifically reference those communities that are sending people to London because they think we have the resources to assist them.

[51:16] And of course, we know that that’s not the case because of the many, many people that are sleeping in the rough. So if I may, first I would like to just put on the floor, number B, as a motion, the staff be directed to initiate a review of the zoning bylaw to consider temporary mobile shelters at places of worship. And I would look for a seconder for that motion. Well, let’s see if there is one.

[51:51] Is there a seconder for B? Councillor Palosa, is your seconder? Any comments or questions beyond what has been discussed thus far? Councillor Turner, go ahead, please. I’d like to just make a quick point, your worship, through you. I’ve heard this narrative a couple times that other municipalities are sending their under-housed and homeless individuals to London to access services. That’s not been substantiated anywhere. It’s a rumor. It’s unethical for municipalities to do so. We would not do that.

[52:26] Other municipalities would not do that. It seems to pervade when we have these discussions about those who are under-housed and homeless. And I don’t think it does much service to us as a municipality. In our discussions about how we provide services and compassion for those who are experiencing those challenges, whether from our region from others. And so I just wanted to address that. I keep hearing it. It needs to be addressed on the floor of council here. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? Councillor, I know Councillor Cassidy, but as the chair, I might kind of let her be little later, but Councillor Cassidy, you’re there now.

[53:05] Why don’t you go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a question to staff. I know there’s been a lot of discussion around the zoning by-law and as it pertains to the activities at a place of worship. I know places of worship have quite a bit of leeway on what they define as worship. But I would really like to hear from staff if such a review is already underway. And just general commentary on if council were to take this, make this decision and direct staff in this manner.

[53:43] Number one, is it necessary? Is the review already taking place? Number two, will it impinge on things that are already taking place at the civic administration level? Let’s ask Mr. Mathers. Do you worship? I’ll just speak to a couple of items there. So firstly, we are currently aware of the proposal that’s 696 done to us. So when we’re looking at that site, we’re still in the preliminary stages of confirming whether that property meets the zoning by-law for what the use that’s being suggested.

[54:17] So we have not made a decision on that property at this time, but we’re also including an analysis looking at what other miss pilots are doing and how, if they have any kind of pilots like this, how they’re addressing it from a zoning perspective. So firstly, for the single property, we haven’t made a decision on that property at this point. As far as moving forward and looking at this in the future, I would probably suggest that the best way to do that would be to align with the new process we’re looking at for the rethink zoning, which is the creation of a new zoning by-law for the city of London.

[54:52] So we are currently engaging with the community on that. There’s opportunities to be able to get involved. So that’s probably the most likely place that we would suggest looking at that this specific matter in the future and with respect to our zoning by-law. Thank you very much, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, that’s it for me with questions. Thank you, any other comments or questions with respect to Part B, the motion on the floor, the amendment. Councillor Close, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship. As we’ve all been doing lots of engagements with residents, grateful for the compassion that they’re showing to our unhoused neighbors.

[55:32] And as we know, it is Canadian winters and winters perpetually always coming upon us, wondering through you to staff, what are winter response with the city? What’s it looking like in regards to mobile housing and realizing we do have community partners willing to step and lend a hand of willing to explore this and see what might be coming, realizing that the rethink zoning is wonderful of working in an overhaul, but it’s likely not gonna be having an impact we wanted to in the near term. Mr. Mathers. Thank you, Your Worship.

[56:08] I’m gonna pass this question to Mr. Dickens. For wisdom, Mr. Dickens, go ahead, please. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I can speak to the winter response planning that’s currently underway. The community continues to finalize a community led response. We as the municipality have been working to support those efforts and then support the planning of the full of community. So we are targeting a very early November deadline or timetable for the community to finalize and submit the budgets and the planning for the winter response.

[56:49] The community continues to meet and work on those specific details. The work is progressing quite nicely and it looks like this year’s winter response truly will be community led. Some of those details are still not finalized and I wouldn’t be able to speak tonight in terms of the amount or the presence of this particular type of indoor shelter in response. But there is a large whole of community response in terms of what this looks like.

[57:25] Thank you, it’s a pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Dickens for that information. Realizing we’re seeing temperatures drop at night and our neighbors needing housing now. Thank you. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions colleagues? Oh, Councillor Hummer, go ahead, please. Thank you. I like where Councillor Granholz is going. This part of it is motion and communication and my only concern is that it be directed to the right place and I’m glad that Councillors have already asked questions that kind of brought up the same thing I wanted to talk about which is should we be referring it into the rethink zoning process.

[58:06] And my only hesitation with the language that Councillor Vanholz says brought forward is that it’s narrowly focused on places of worship. And on the one hand, he’s talking about a site-specific thing which we can get to when we get to that part, I guess, if we’re gonna talk about that particular motion as on that front, but that’s not a place of worship, right? And then we’re talking about, well, what about all these places of worship? And I actually think there’s potentially many locations where a small number of temporary mobile shelters could work well and that all those locations should be considered as part of the rethink zoning process, not just places of worship, but other areas of my work.

[58:46] As we saw, we’ve run a pretty good winter response in a number of locations, including an area that’s owned for a golf course, an area that’s owned for a hospital. There’s the very various different places where we’ve had pretty effective responses. So I don’t wanna narrow it down to just places of worship. So I’m supportive of looking at places of worship. I think, and my preference would be to refer both of these communications, the communication that came into the committee and then this one to counsel to the rethink zoning process rather than create a separate stream that’s just focused on places of worship.

[59:25] So I’m gonna move that referral, which essentially would be for both of these issues to refer them to the rethink London process and see if there’s a seconder for that. And essentially, I think accomplishes the same sort of thing except that they’re tied on the same timeline in terms of the places of worship part. And it would potentially deal with more than just places of worship. I think it doesn’t close the door to looking at other locations as well. Then let’s see if you have a seconder for the referral. Councillor Lewis, very much.

[1:00:01] Comments or questions on the referral? Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, worship. And I appreciate the support of a council and the suggestion as well. My question through you to staff and is one of the timing. So we were told that it would be about 90 days to do the work for a single site at 696 Dundas, slightly longer for this review to take place I was told. But how long will it take to come to a conclusion with the rethink zoning in terms of these two items?

[1:00:49] I think Mr. Mathers would be the right one to respond to that, please. Through you, worship, the rethink zoning process. We are currently engaging in the consultation, as you can see from the PEC agenda. So the schedule for completion currently for the rethink zoning process is the end of 2023. So this, it would likely see a first draft in the second order of 2023, but that would be the soonest that you would see something coming forward that would address any of these kind of analysis.

[1:01:30] Councillor Vanholst. Okay, so yes, thank you. So I think it’s a good place to discuss this. However, we see that passing our motion today would allow certainly an A would allow arcade mission to use some empty temporary shelters to house people for this winter. But as it stands with the rethink process, it might be two winters or into two winters before someone is able to use them.

[1:02:15] So I would prefer that we defeat that and allow this to take place. And certainly there as a pilot, I think they’re gonna do some important work that’s outside of just opening the shelters, but it’s figuring out what kind of agreements they need with people, how to create a small community of individuals in these types of units.

[1:02:51] What other supports are needed around them? So I think there’s very valuable work that could be done here. And again, the looking at the zoning for places of worship, that was an obvious one. I realized there may be others. However, when the work is done, we could certainly extend that in the bylaw and look at it. But I would ask through you to staff, how much longer than the 90 days, do we think we could complete a review of this particular zoning bylaw to for the temporary mobile shelters at places of worship?

[1:03:39] Councillor Lewis, I will, but you’re on the speakers list. Thanks for much, Mr. Mathers, go ahead, please. You’re worship. So the 90 day value is also, that’s likely to be like a minimum for a site like this. If you’re looking at a more extensive zoning amendment, then you may be pushing up to like the five to six months, period.

[1:04:11] Any else, Councillor Vanholst, on the report. Okay, and that was, my question was for B, that if we looked at a review of the zoning bylaw to permit temporary mobile shelters at places of worship, you said that would, in our conversations, I wasn’t in the impression it would take somewhat longer than 90 days, but is that the— The story, that’s the five to six months. Source the five to six months. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Okay, well, thank you. So your worship, although I appreciate if my colleagues want to refer this to the broader process, I do see some urgency and therefore I’ll probably vote against the referral myself.

[1:05:00] Thank you, Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, Your Worship. So I appreciate Councillor Helmer putting this referral on the floor and happy to second it. I think the rethink zoning process is exactly where this needs to go. I think it’s important when we reference a specific type of zoning, like places of worship, that we recognize that places of worship aren’t all created equally either. There are places of worship in every neighborhood across the city and they are not all the same sort of physical plant and set up.

[1:05:32] There are other requirements beyond being a place of worship that I could foresee being necessary for this type of zoning amendment to move forward. So I think it really needs to go into the more comprehensive review and being mindful of the fact as well that that rethink zoning process is still open for public input and participation as well. And if we’re talking about a change like this, I think that the public needs a chance to weigh in as well because again, as I said, there’s places of worship in every neighborhood in the city. And what that impact looks like can differ from neighborhood to neighborhood depending on the neighborhood layout.

[1:06:07] I mean, we see places of worship in the downtown, which are often much more closely in close proximity to one another, whereas out in the neighborhoods they may be spaced further apart, the impacts can be different there. So I think that this referral is the best path for us to pursue at this time. Thank you, any other comments or questions, colleagues? I see none. On the referral, we’ll call the question. Motion carries 12 to three.

[1:06:55] Thank you, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, that is my report. Thank you very much now for the 11th report of the community, excuse me, corporate services. So call on Councillor Lewis, please. Thank you, worship. I have not been made aware of any items that anyone wishes to pull. So if we want to canvas the room to see if anyone wants anything pulled otherwise, we’ll put the whole report on the floor. Well, let’s do just that then. Does anyone wish to have any of these items voted on separately?

[1:07:32] I see none, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, worship. These were unanimous decisions at committee, so I’ll put the whole report on the floor. Any comments or questions? I see none, we’ll call the vote. Councillor Van Halst, closing the vote.

[1:08:09] Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, Councillor Lutz, the report from corporate services committee, Your Worship. Thanks for much. Now for the 16th report of planning environment, I’ll call on Councillor Hopkins, please. Thank you, Your Worship. I would like to put the 16th report of the planning and environment committee report on the floor. I have not heard from anyone wishing to have any items pulled. So with that, I will put all items on the floor.

[1:08:46] Does anyone wish to have any of these items voted on separately? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, if I may, we’ve had two planning committee meetings since the last time Council met and we received a number of consent items. We had four public participation meetings. I do want to bring everyone’s attention to the items for direction. So we just had a conversation about the rethink process. So we did receive the report and really appreciated Council’s support in the item that we referred from caps over to the rethink process.

[1:09:28] It is something that we need to get going as soon as possible. So I was really pleased that we were able to receive the report. We also had another item for direction, which was 4.2. And this was the zoning bylaw amendment for seasonal outdoor patios. And we had a good discussion for those who need a refresher. This was referred back to staff and it came back to planning with a number of suggestions that were made removing references to specific months of operation.

[1:10:01] And aligning the eight month regulations based on the Liquor License and Control Act was one suggestion adding the capacity limits based on the Liquor License and Control Act as well as adding restrictions to seasonal outdoor patios to protect accessibility parking spaces. Those were the suggestions. I do want to also let Council know. Council Turner made a motion moving forward with the revised bylaw that staff be 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.

[1:10:48] And that’s the section that we are changing here at Council. So with that, I’ll put all items on the floor. Thank you very much, any other comments or questions? Colleagues, I see none, we will call the question on the 16th reported planning environment. Was in the vote, motion carries 15-0.

[1:11:24] Standing, why don’t we get you to report on the 17th planning environment committee meeting, please? I will, I’d like to put on the floor, the 17th report of the planning environment committee. I have been asked to pull three, which is 3.2442 Wellington Road South. Are there any other items? Well, let’s ask that question. Does anyone wish to have any other item voted on separately? I’m sorry, of course, the two amendments that we have for number six, which is 3.5 and number five, which is 3.4.

[1:12:10] So we’re dealing with item three and item six, which are 3.2 and 3.5 on your schedules. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to have anything voted on separately? So with the exception of those two items, any comments then on items one through six, exclusive of three, two and three, five? And I’m advised by the clerk just so that I’m paying attention that 3.4, which is 366 Health Street, also has an amendment to it.

[1:12:58] So then that means colleagues, we are dealing with items one, two and four. Any questions on those? Seeing none, we’ll call the question on those. Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:13:32] Councillor. I’m glad to put three, which is 3.2442 Wellington Road South on the floor. And this was pulled by the Councilor of the Ward, Councillor Hillyer. This is a rezoning application, going to a light industrial place type, as well as a industrial holding provision for light industrial as well. And with that, I’ll put that on the floor. Thanks very much, any comments or questions?

[1:14:07] Recognize Councillor Hillyer. Yes, thank you. I’d like to thank my colleagues for listening to this tonight. 445 to Wellington Road South, they’re looking at putting a trucking firm in there. And this refers to how the neighborhood was notified. Only 150 meters. Well, the only people that were notified for this was another trucking firm. The residents were not notified, but they were notified about the golf course driving range, which is three times farther away. Now, if you know this area, the corner of Castleton and Dingman, the traffic, the hydro pole there, has been taken out four times in the last year alone.

[1:14:42] And we want to put a trucking center right there on the corner. We also have a road that doesn’t have curbs, doesn’t have gutters, doesn’t have sidewalks and families that walk along it. If you have two trucks driving down this road, you cannot walk down that road. You have to get into the ditch or in someone’s driveway. And I’m very concerned about this because the neighborhood was not told in a way that unless they had walked up the construction sign and read it, they would have never have seen it because they were not notified. So I’m asking for a referral for one cycle so that a public participation meeting can be called so the neighborhood can be involved in this.

[1:15:18] You’ve asked for a referral, which takes precedence. Is there a seconder for the referral? I see Councillor Layman. Thank you very much. Comments or questions on the referral? Councillor Palose, who go ahead, please. Thank you to the board, Councillor, for pulling this one. Realizing that us in the south, under a lot of our areas are rural and we don’t have the sidewalk infrastructure, but we still have residences living out there who are seeing a greater movement out that way of trucking firms coming out to the south end, which is understandable ‘cause there’s the highway, but there isn’t the sidewalks, the street lighting, the roads have soft shoulders.

[1:16:00] My only question through you to the Councillor was, just he’s requesting a referral back for one cycle, which I’m fine to support for residents could be notified just making sure he’s specific and what kind of notifications ‘cause they give out notifications of 150 meters again. The residents still won’t get them. I think it’s a fair question. I’m going to do a little chairman’s privilege having been participating in the meeting. We did hear from staff about how they had advised a various individual. So I think the question is a fair question about specifically what you’re looking for, Councillor Hill, your place. Yes, it’s just because of the way of the notification is given, the residences in the area were not properly, well, it’s notified according to our standards, but it’s not proper for what we’re trying to put in the area because Dingman Drive has not been upgraded for trucks.

[1:16:47] We don’t even have a traffic light at Highbury and Dingman Drive. How does a truck turn left from there? If you go there right now, they can be backed up four and five trucks deep. So what I’m asking for is another public participation meeting and I myself will knock on every door in that neighborhood to get them there so we can actually have a conversation with the safety issues in this area that continue to keep being forgotten. So that’s what I’m asking for. Back to you, Councillor Plowser. I appreciate that, realizing that the residents are far apart in regards to some of these applications we have coming in and that when the city does follow prescribed manner, absolutely to the letter of the law that they don’t necessarily get the information that would be helpful to them.

[1:17:36] And then when the planning application notices go up, sometimes it does end up being in a farmer’s field that you need to traverse the ditch in order to get there or get your binoculars ‘cause you simply can’t see it. So I appreciate this information coming forward, realizing it’s just transparency to all in realizing that residents who do also know those areas are residential at neighborhood where they’ve decided to raise their families and they would like an opportunity to fully participate. Thank you, any other comments or questions? That’s for those. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:18:10] I’m just gonna reiterate what I said at committee and it’s no disrespect to the Councillor. I appreciate that he feels that there needs to be better notification, but we have met our statutory duty on this application. And when we start to make exception for one, then we open up the door to making exception for all. And these notifications go out with, over the course of a year, all of the applications that go combined come with a considerable cost for those to be mailed out, costs that’s borne by the taxpayer.

[1:18:42] So when we start making new rules for different applications, I get very concerned about both the fairness as well as the financial impact of changing the rules on the fly. So I won’t support this. There was a public participation meeting at the Planning and Environment Committee, and that has met our statutory obligation on this matter. Thank you. I recognize Councillor Unhost. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m inclined to support this, certainly for purposes of transparency, which something we’re obliged to do as a council, but also because it’s, we need to need to review our process.

[1:19:26] So there’s a difference between rural and urban environments. And so I can see how we might need to go further than that specified distance in order to give people that are impacted very closely by the intersection. So it may be much farther than a distance that, but this still may be the closest intersection of concern to a number of residents that would like to have had the opportunity to speak.

[1:20:06] And I think if we provide this opportunity, we’ll also get a chance to see how many people did come and share their views. So I’ll support it. Thanks very much. Other comments or questions? Councillor Ann Merber. Thank you, Mayor. I’ll support this referral motion by Councillor Hillier. He is the word counselor. He understands the unique situation going on in this particular area.

[1:20:39] So I would suggest that we all support this. Thank you. Thanks. So they’re comments or questions. Councillor Turner, go ahead and please. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not inclined to support the referral. Councillor Lewis articulated the reasons quite well here. The statutory notification distance is something that we’ve investigated a few times. And it is a challenging one. And when we last embarked on this, we actually made a number of changes to our notification process, which included a fairly significant increase in the amount of signage, showing what the design charrette was going to be on there, trying to make it as conspicuous as possible because we recognized that not everybody within the notification radius may be interested in the rezoning of a property and that there may be people outside of the notification radius who might be interested in that rezoning as well.

[1:21:33] The public participation meeting was advertised. It was placed through all the appropriate channels. It is more difficult and I recognize that in rural properties because of the distances between properties. Ultimately, that’s something that if we’re concerned about that, we should be taking that up with the province and looking for changes within the Municipal Act and the Planning Act because that notification, the challenge is once we go beyond what’s statutorily required of us, it creates an onus on us in all future circumstances if we’re not really careful with that.

[1:22:11] And that’s hard to be able to, let’s say in a rural area that we create a notification radius that’s two or three kilometers, apply that same standard into an urban area. And the number of residences and notifications is exponentially higher and incredibly costly. The challenges that we see as well is in the urban areas is the differences between renters and homeowners between property owners.

[1:22:46] We don’t have a mechanism right now to notify renters or non-property owners who might be residing within the notification area as well. Those are challenges that I think we continue to want to be able to address. But to be able to reboot public participation meetings every time that a neighborhood might not feel that they receive proper notification, I think we’re gonna find that every time. There are going to be residents within the notification area and outside of the notification area that don’t feel that they got the notice that they needed.

[1:23:19] I think we can do a lot to continue to try and improve the process, but on a specific on specific files as they come up for us to reboot it each time, I don’t think that’s appropriate. I am sympathetic to the concerns, the neighborhood. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the counselor, but in this circumstance, I think process is really important so that we don’t find ourselves caught in the future. Thank you, any other comments or questions with respect to the referral? Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:23:52] And I didn’t support it at committee and I won’t be supporting it here at council. I appreciate the work that Councillor is doing here representing his community. One of the reasons I agree with Councillor Lewis, Councillor Turner, for me it sets a very dangerous precedent. I have many, many applications in Ward 9 and I constantly hear I didn’t get the notice, even though I was really close to that 120 meter radius. There are opportunities to get on the notification list. Anyone can get on the notification list.

[1:24:27] I do have a quick question through you. Your Worship to staff about the signage. If I can ask a staff, when did this notice, the signage go up on the property? Let’s take this back to staff and get some clarity around the timing, please. Good, Mr. Mayor. Your Worship, Kevin Edwards is here to be able to provide any of that technical. Well, then let’s go there, Mr. Edwards, please. Through your Worship.

[1:25:01] So I don’t have the exact date in front of me, but typically it’s right when the application is submitted following that. Councillor Hopkins. So was it generally speaking around what time then? I’d have to go back and look at the when the application was submitted. Councillor Hopkins. Okay, I understand it was submitted a number of months ago, but if you could get that confirmation, I know we had that discussion at planning, but I don’t want to just assume any date either. Again, I didn’t support it at committee.

[1:25:38] I think maybe, I remember a number of years ago, we had the conversation about the radius, and maybe there is an opportunity in the future to have a look at how we send out notifications to the public. I know there’s challenges in the rural areas, but I think there’s also challenges in the urban area, especially when it comes to tenants not being notified and not having those opportunities. So I won’t be supporting another public participation meeting. It does set a very dangerous precedent for me in particular, representing a ward that’s all about development.

[1:26:22] I’ll have someone ask me in the next application. They didn’t get the notice. And here we go, we’re setting ourselves up for a challenge, even though I appreciate the work that you’re doing within the community. Thank you, Councillor Hummer, Councillor Hummer. Sorry, I thought you were referring to a different Councillor. I have a question through the mayor to Councillor Hillier.

[1:26:59] I want to make sure I understand and I regret that I wasn’t actually at the planning committee meeting to hear the discussion there. So if you’re repeating yourself, I’m sorry for that. The specific neighborhoods that you’re interested in getting the notices sent to and sort of heading the reset button on the PPM are these, like the houses to the east, sort of on the other side of the creek, and then sort of the smaller development, there’s a small subdivision sort of to the south. Again, the other side of the creek around the intersection of Westminster and Wellington are those the areas that you’re interested in getting notices out to.

[1:27:36] They look like they’re around kilometer away or something like that. Is that the right neighborhood? Are those two neighborhoods? Councillor Hillier. Actually, we’re talking about Broccoli Shaver, which is right there on Digman Drive, approximately 180 meters, it starts from where this development is going in. And it’s all the residents that live along that stretch. My biggest issue is how we notify we’re comparing urban to rural and how we’re doing 150 meters for notification. And I think we need to rework those because rural areas need to be a larger notification. I know Councillor Hopkins also has a lot of rural and it’s causing a problem for them as well.

[1:28:08] So I would like this to come back for one cycle because if nothing else, it shows us the reasoning that we need to open this back up and have a discussion for rural areas. So have them included in the conversation. Because if you’re having 150 meters in a rural area, that’s one person’s property. Councillor Hummer. Thank you. So I do think we’re getting at an issue in the way that we’re providing notice. And I think we have to be sensitive to, there’s different built form in different parts of the city and different kinds of neighborhoods and different kinds of developments that happen in those neighborhoods.

[1:28:52] And so we don’t necessarily hear about some of this stuff actually as a problem because when subdivisions, for example, when they come forward for approval, often many years in advance of when they’re gonna be developed, at the time that those things come forward, it’s a whole bunch of agricultural land and very few residents within 120 meters. And so when the proposals come forward centered around the notice and not many people see it and the people who do are probably farming or they own farmland. And there’s not a lot of discussion then.

[1:29:25] And then later when it actually comes to implementation, people who actually had this happen in other areas of council earlier support, they come forward and say, what’s going on here? Like, what do you mean you’re doing this? We didn’t know about that. And I do think it’s partly a function of just the rural areas, especially the ones that are under pressure to transform into non agricultural uses. That’s where you’re seeing probably the most friction and also where you’d have the notification if you apply the 120 meter radius really not reaching that many people.

[1:29:58] So I mean, on this specific application, I’m not totally convinced we need to reset the clock, but I think the broader issue about, should we have another look at how we’re doing notifications? I think we’ve made a lot of improvements like those signs that are up there now are much, much better than they used to be. And at least you get a sense that something is happening and you could inquire further. But the signs that you can walk up to and read are not as easy to read when you’re driving past them. There’s no sidewalk in front of them, you can’t just walk up to them.

[1:30:31] And I think Councilor Hayley or Councillor Fuzzer are both pointing out as Councillor Sue represent areas where they have this rural to urban transition happening in their wards, that there’s some friction there. So I think that broader issue, we should deal with that. And so on this one, I’m not sure I’m going to support the referral for a full cycle. The planning issues to me seem pretty straightforward. But I’m not totally made on my mind on that. I’m open, you know, listen a little bit more maybe a referral would make sense in this case. Any other comments or questions?

[1:31:05] I’m gonna ask the Deputy Mayor to take the chair please. Thank you, I’ll go to the Mayor. Colleagues, I typically tend to support the direction of staff on things like this as it relates to PPMs. But in this case here, I’m going to support Councillor Hillier and here’s why. We just heard Councillor Hummer talking about resetting the clock or not. Well, guess what? Or daylight savings time is done. So maybe sometimes it’s time to reset the clock. And the notion of looking at that rural urban difference and the same rules that apply to one thing don’t necessarily apply to the other.

[1:31:46] And I’m exceptionally mindful of the challenge. I mean, we heard at the Planning Environment Committee meeting the challenges that residents felt by not being included and isn’t that our job? Isn’t that our job to listen? If they don’t feel that they’ve been duly consulted and I’m respectful of precedent and I’m mindful of the hard work that staff have done. But in this case here to the extent that it opens up the larger conversation of how we deal with notifications, perhaps within our rural areas, for all the reasons that makes some sense.

[1:32:20] So Councillor William, happy to support your referral. We’ll see where this goes as we move along into the balance of this meeting. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I’ll return the chair to the mayor. Thanks, any other final comments? On the question of the referral, I will call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries, eight to seven.

[1:33:12] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship, I’d like to put number five, which is 366 Hill Street. We do have an amendment. It’s an administrative amendment on the floor. Thanks very much. Do you have a seconder for the amendment? I see Councillor Fife Miller, thank you very much. Comments or questions?

[1:33:54] I see none, we will call the question. Councillor Homue, Councillor Van Merebergen. Close in the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

[1:34:44] Thanks very much. Are you moving the motion is amended? Yes. Thank you, Wrench, do you have a seconder for that? Councillor Cassidy, thanks for much comments or questions. Let’s call that question, please, as amended. Close in the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

[1:35:23] Councillor Hopkins. Yes, the last item is number six, which is 1156 Dundas Street. It is an amendment as well. And just for councils, if no one checked in on the planning committee meeting, we had quite a public participation. This is the lands that are associated with a former McCormick factory. And in particular, the concerns from the community were around the height and also the parkland dedication that we did have a conversation around putting the building that’s situated on block three.

[1:36:12] What is allowed is four to six with bonus saying it was the recommendation coming from staff was to refuse that. Councillor Halmer attended the committee meeting and made a motion bringing forward going to a five story. It was debated and it was supported. So the amendment is coming forward. There was quite a bit of work that needed to be done to change the recommendation. And if I can just take Council through some of the changes there, we don’t need to buy laws now.

[1:36:48] We just need that one bylaw. And if you look at B, the difference to the recommendation that was passed at committee is that we are adding to that B clause, it being noted that this rezoning will permit a maximum height of 18 meters and a maximum density of 150 units per hectare on the block three of the proposal draft plan of subdivision. In other words, we’re not using five stories. That’s what we were discussing at committee.

[1:37:22] We are using the 18 meters. And again, the other amendment that we’re making to this is that we are changing clause D. Again, referring to this being just one bylaw. And we are using E as the old F. And so with that, that’s the amendment that is coming forward with the recommendation to approve this application. Thank you.

[1:37:56] Do you have a seconder for that amendment? I see Councilor Cassidy, thank you very much, comments or questions. Councilor Homer, go ahead. Thank you. I hope colleagues will support the recommendation from committee. I really appreciated the committee hearing the out there about why the five stories or 18 meters made more sense on block three. Colleagues who’ve been on council for two terms will remember dealing with a lot of the zoning for this property back in 2017.

[1:38:35] And I think it came up in the public participation meeting that some of the residents who live in the area that are understandably frustrated that redevelopment of the site is taken so long. The applicant who has done a lot of work to clean it up was stuck with some delays at the provincial level for quite some time. And it’s quite eager to be moving ahead with redeveloping the factory into residential providing a new long-term care facility and apartments for seniors in some townhouses along the North edge. And at the time the zoning came forward as we pre-zone all these lands when we sold lands to Sierra.

[1:39:12] Just after that, we did the rezoning. And at that time, I would say there was a lot of agreement. Another group was totally happy with there was a lot of agreement. And today we’re at a point where there’s some frustration and I think people are pretty close to being unhappy with the overall thing. So you heard the residents come forward and express some frustration and not so much about the height going up to five but the town homes instead of single detached houses along the northern edge of the site. It’s the difference between 11 units and eight units which was a new sort of initially planned.

[1:39:47] The applicant on the other hand is not happy about a couple of things. They wanna go to six stories on the one block instead of five. And they don’t wanna provide this pathway system unless it’s gonna be counted as parkland dedication. And the problem there is that the pathway is undersized. The standard for pathway to be accepted as parkland is 15 meters and that points their corridor that they’re suggesting should be accepted as parkland is only nine meters wide.

[1:40:20] So it’s too small and so it’s not being accepted as parkland and that’s becoming an issue that I really am hopeful will not delay a whole redevelopment. And if we go ahead with the zoning amendments that planning committee has recommended, I think overall it’s the right thing to do for the site. The parkland dedication issues being treated the same as any sort of vision would be treated. You have to provide parkland that’s the right size. And if you don’t, it’s not gonna be accepted. If it’s less than is required, you have to pay cash. And that’s applied to every sort of vision including this one.

[1:40:55] And I think city staff are being very fair following the policy framework for that. I really would like to see the site redevelop as quickly as possible. There’s quite a deadline that the long-term care proponent is facing in order to get in the ground and start building. And so really at the point where we need to go ahead and not have any more delays, that’s why I didn’t support trying to get to six stories on block three and would have delayed things too much. Five stories, there’s a good policy basis for that. And the London plan, we don’t have to wait even longer to have something happen. So this development’s really important for the area.

[1:41:30] The proponent and the applicant has done a lot of really good work to get to this point. I really hope that they go ahead. I know they’re not totally happy with this parkland dedication issue, but I hope they go ahead and move on at the next phases and through development because we need housing in this area. And we need it very soon. And we really can’t have more delays on this front. So I hope colleagues will support these opportunities. Thanks and other comments or questions. I see Councillor Cassidy. Thank you.

[1:42:03] Thank you, Your Worship. Just wanna say I’m really supportive of this as Councillor Halmer pointed out, this has been a long time coming. And I think, you know, the vision for this site is really phenomenal. And once it’s built out, it will have such an impact in the area. And having said all that, I put my hand up really fast recognizing all the work that Councillor Halmer’s done, not just at the last planning committee meeting, but even all throughout the last term of council. I’m happy to let Councillor Halmer be the second on this motion if he wants that.

[1:42:36] And hopefully it will just be a quick thing for the clerk to change my name to Councillor Halmer’s. Thanks very much, comments or other comments. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I just wanna add my thanks to the Councillor. I know this application has been a long time coming. I know the community is in a hundred percent concerned around that extra bit of height that’s happening, like Councillor Halmer said around the townhouses.

[1:43:12] But to me, this is a compromise that we can put in the five story without having it referred back. It’s site specific. And with that, I just wanna thank the Councillor for the work that he’s done. Thanks very much. I have no one else on the speaker’s list. Councillor Cassidy, were you asking a question? Yes, Your Worship, you were consulting with the clerk and I think you both missed my comments. I just offered to change my second and give it to Councillor Halmer.

[1:43:46] So he gets back in the motion since he’s the word counselor and he’s been very invested in this. Well, I don’t know how we do procedural things without the blessing of the chair, but apparently you don’t need me for that purpose. So it would appear that Councillor Halmer is the seconder on this. But not to be outdone. We have Councillor Van Holst. Do you wanna weigh in on this as well, sir? Not so much weigh in your worship, but I did wanna ask a question. Just throw a staff for a little clarification about the idea of the parkland dedication if they could provide a few more details.

[1:44:24] So in this instance, the nine meter width pathway, I guess, is being proposed, whereas it would require another six meters to count as parkland dedication. And is there no, so I just wanna find out there’s no prorated amount. It’s just an either or you have to meet this standard in order to get it or otherwise it counts for not. Well, then let’s ask staff that question.

[1:45:05] Mr. Mathers, I always go to you just because you’re so friendly. Your worship, Mr. Edwards will be here. He’s actually prepared for this question, thanks. Mr. Edwards, second time tonight, that’s a highlight. I’ll leave though. So three are worship. I guess there’s really two elements to this. There is a parkland dedication piece, so there is a small park. It really comes down to these corridors. And A, the corridors aren’t being dedicated to the city, so they are private. So it’s gonna be privately accessible open space. So it’s not really a dedication per se because it’s gonna be retained for private.

[1:45:41] I think the other piece too is that’s exactly it. It’s the standard typically is 15 meters ‘cause that allows us to build it and operate it over the long term. So that’s really typically the minimum requirement. And I think the other piece too, just to be aware of as well, is that this land as it’s gonna be retained for private, it’s also, there’s several zoning standards that are making use of this because it won’t be dedicated. So for example, it’ll accommodate the required zoning for landscaped open space. You can also use the density as well.

[1:46:14] So I guess it’s under-sized A, but it’s also gonna be retained for private, thus it’s not available as a dedication. Thank you very much, Councillor. Is that answer your question? I think it does, Your Worship. I appreciate the response from staff. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? Colleagues, this is on the amendment that has been moved and seconded, we’ll call the question.

[1:46:55] Yes, apparently seconded twice, I knew. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks very much, you’re looking to move this. Let’s see if you have a seconder and Councillor Helmer.

[1:47:27] I’m gonna ignore Councillor Cassidy for this purpose. Councillor Helmer, are you good to second this amended motion? I don’t normally do this, but just ‘cause it’s us. We look to see if Councillor Cassidy then would like to second. There we go, thank you very much. Any comments or questions? Colleagues, let’s call the question. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:48:10] Thank you very much. I’ll turn over the last comments to you. Thanks very much, Colleagues. In our last meeting, we had the opportunity to acknowledge Greg Barrett on his retirement. Now he’s not here to listen to all the nice things I’m about to say, but I would like to feel that in the last meeting when he was present, Colleagues and I joined in the spirit of appreciation for the great work that he has done over so many years with the city of London.

[1:48:45] And if there’s the epitome of servant in the word civil servant and servant leadership, I would say it’s Greg Barrett, he’s been great. So by permitting me through the, with the permission of the committee chair to acknowledge Greg even though for this very moment, he has now gone from the city. I just wanna say on behalf of all council, thank you very much, you’ve been tremendous and we appreciate your leadership. Your opinions, probably a few more of my Cape Breton mother when it comes to planning and I would tell you that you have really been a difference maker.

[1:49:20] So with that, we say sincere, thanks from all of us at council. So with that, anything else for you? Councillor Hopkins. That is my report. Thank you very much. With that, let’s go to the 14th report of strategic parties and policy. Deputy Mayor, please. Yes, thank you. I’m going to, there was only one matter on this report that had a divided vote, but both the mover and the second are indicated that he needed pulled separately. So I’m gonna attempt to put the whole, the whole package on the floor for the evening tonight.

[1:49:57] Well, let’s see if you can get away with that. And having said that, does anyone wish to have any item pulled to be voted separately? Looks good, Deputy Mayor, go ahead. I’m happy to move it then. Any comments or questions on any of the items in the SPPC report? Seeing none, let’s call the question. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:50:37] Deputy Mayor. That’s it for us. Much we have the added reports, which is the 13th report of Council on closed session, I’ll call on Councillor Hameau, please. Thank you, Mayor. I’m gonna report out that progress was made on the six items listed on the agenda in closed session. Thank you. I think we’re just, I just conferred with the clerk, I believe the rate items in closed session.

[1:51:14] Okay, there were eight items listed on the agenda in closed session. We should all be so agreeable. Thank you very much. Do you have a seconder for that? I see Councillor Hilliard, thank you very much. Any discussion? Let’s call the vote. The vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:52:10] No deferred matters, but we do have an inquiry. I’ll call on Councillor Red Murburgen, please. Thank you, Mayor. I’m sure some of my colleagues have heard similar incidences, what I’m going to describe. But it certainly has come to my attention from sources that are very solid and reliable that organized groups of homeless are coming into London from other areas outside of London.

[1:52:45] And clearly, we are not able to handle our own situation here in our own community, let alone taken community homeless from other areas of the province and perhaps beyond. Again, this is from very reliable sources who know what’s happening here in London on the street. So I wanted to take this opportunity to use the inquiry, to ask staff, perhaps starting with Mr. Dickens in terms of their awareness of what is or perhaps is not happening on the streets right now.

[1:53:28] Let’s ask Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. There have been occurrences over the summer months and into the fall where we hear reports of individuals coming to London in groups or arriving on a bus, for example, but those occurrences are difficult to substantiate. Often there are rumblings or we encounter individuals who’ve come to London days or weeks later as a people are lucky to access services.

[1:54:11] We’re not really getting a lot of information to substantiate that this is a coordinated effort from any one municipality, but in any occurrence where we have individuals looking to access services and they indicate they’ve come from another community, be it on their own or if they indicate that they were sent here, we will often look to connect them back to their home community if there are supports and we make it very clear that our system capacity in London has already reached its maximum capacity.

[1:54:45] And if there was any indications from another community that London had rooms or services, we make that known it’s not the case. I will add as a context piece, this topic is very popular at the provincial tables with other large urban municipalities and other regional municipalities as they see a lot of incoming individuals to their communities as well from neighboring municipalities and even other large urban centers.

[1:55:17] So if it is happening on large scale in London, we’re not seeing that in a way that we could substantiate it, but we do know that we do receive individuals from other communities as does a lot of large urban centers as well. Thank you, Councillor Ann River. Thank you, like as an example, apparently 10 days ago or so a bus came into London with 23 homeless from an area outside the city all from the same area.

[1:55:51] If this is indeed the case, what can the city do to mitigate or control this situation? If indeed it starts to become very obvious that this is happening more and more coming into London. What can we do? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. Thank you for the follow-up question. As far as a mitigation strategy, we would be and we continue to communicate to our municipal service manager partners.

[1:56:26] The London is at its capacity when it comes to homeless prevention services, program, shelter beds, any type of resting space rooms. If we get reports of people are coming here, we will reach out to our municipal partners as well of the originating community. So let them know that we would be working with individuals to reconnect them back to their home communities. But again, we do see a lot of in and outflow as many large urban centers and regional municipalities do. But we are very clear when we work with our municipal service managers that we’re not in a position to receive individuals because we do not have system capacity.

[1:57:10] And I think one of the challenges is that there’s not many municipalities in Ontario that do have capacity. Thanks for watching, Mr. Dickens. Now we’ll go on. If I may, there are. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. There are no emergent motions, which moves us to bylaws and colleagues. So we’re going to be dealing with bills three, six, one through three, 82, but we will be omitting bills three, 67 and three, 78 as a result of the referral related to four, four, five, two Wellington Road South. So colleagues, just to be clear, we will be voting for bills three, six, one, two, three, two inclusive, not quite with the exception of three, 67 and three, 78.

[1:57:56] And with that, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Turner. Thanks very much. We’ll call the question. Therk, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. First of all, I would like to confirm the seconder on that motion. Councilor Turner, thank you. This also excludes bill number 382 as that was associated with the amendment for the property at 1156 Dundas Street. So we have removed one of the bylaws associated with that.

[1:58:34] I hope that was clear to the mover and seconder and I did not reference it because the rest of the bills were so in numeric order that I didn’t want to confuse the issue, but 382 is also excluded. So with that, the mover, Councilor Hillier, you’re good, Councilor Turner, you’re good. All right, we are good and good. Let’s call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

[1:59:20] Motion carries 15 to zero. And colleagues, now I’ll be looking for mover and seconder of secondary bills 3381. And we’ll be excluding bills 367, 378 and 382 with that, I’ll look for a mover, please. Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Hamou. Thank you very much. Any discussion? Seeing none, let’s call the question. Councillor Hopkins.

[2:00:14] I vote yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thanks. Finally, I’ll be looking for mover and seconder of third reading for third reading and enactment of bills 361 through 381, excluding bills 367 and 378 and not including 382, do I have a mover for that? Please, Councillor Helmer, thank you very much. Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, thanks very much. With that, we will call the question. Councillor Hopkins.

[2:01:09] I vote yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. We look for a motion to adjourn. Today’s meeting, a couple of acknowledgments, if I can. Sometimes the staff, it’s the big stuff that they do so well. Sometimes it’s the little things that are done so well. It may seem like a little thing, but it isn’t. But every council meeting, when we have a someone who leads us in O Canada, that’s because Corey Crossman and his team make it work. And we’re delighted for that support and that help as well. You heard Councillor Hummer earlier talk about folk music Ontario and the staff involvement that that took.

[2:01:48] A number of us were at the groundbreaking Division Soho, a number of Councillors, but so were to our deputy city managers. Kevin Dickens, who was fairly shy in that meeting and Scott Mathers, who never is. But the beauty of that is that everyone was present and it’s the most unique, the most dynamic, the most incredible project with mixed housing, affordable and supportive housing anywhere in the country. And as I said in my comments that day across North America. An unbelievable effort by all.

[2:02:21] And so I want to give a great shout out to the staff. And also fellow colleagues around this table who supported the initiative relating Division Soho. Certainly the council did get great acknowledgement at that particular session for what was done. Like to acknowledge not just the folks in Carlin Heights, but also the Carlin Heights Optimus Community Centre. And the staff who were associated with transforming Carlin Heights back to a community centre, I’m sure for the community that’s tremendous.

[2:02:55] But you know, they serve more than two years as an assessment centre during COVID. And I know that the communities look forward and I’ve talked to the council about this, but having their community centre return to them earlier this month and we are so delighted for them. But you know, again, it takes a staff effort and it takes effort from the health unit and everyone else who’s been involved. And finally, guess what folks were four weeks away for the remainder of this council to survive. I know some of you will miss me, some may not, but I will miss all of you for the record.

[2:03:28] I want you to know. And we’re not going to say our goodbyes tonight because we do have one more meeting. But what I will say is that for the work that the clerk’s office has done, oh my gosh. It’s been incredible what they have done in terms of polling stations and the various sites where we have had our electoral stations for the advance polls. And we know that the work that’s going to come up one week from today, which is my gentle reminder to all Londoners, let this be the first time that we break new records for municipal voting.

[2:04:07] Wouldn’t that make an incredible statement? Don’t vote for me, that’s the other thing I would say. That would be a waste of your vote. Right in ballots are appreciated, but not necessary. Actually, please, that’s kidding. And I just want to say thanks, clerks, all of you and all your staff. And Ms. Livingston, all the staff that have participated and will be in the election coming forward. What a great team London effort. I just want to say thank you to all of you with that. I will look for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Turner, seconded by Councilor Venn Mirberg. And great, let’s do a show of hands on this, can we?

[2:04:41] All those who want to leave adjourn. That motion’s carried. Thanks, meeting adjourned.