January 9, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   2022 Audit and Accountability Fund - Intake 3 - Final Report

2023-01-09 SR - 2022 Audit and Accountability Fund Intake 3 - Site Plan Resubmission

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated January 9, 2023, entitled “Audit and Accountability Fund - Intake 3 - Final Report” BE RECEIVED for information.    (2022-F11)

Motion Passed

2.4   892 Princess Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application

2023-01-09 SR - 892 Princess Avenue - HAP22-080-L

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Acting 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 the replacement of the original slate roof with asphalt shingles at 892 Princess Avenue, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED.(2022-R01)

Motion Passed

2.6   720 Apricot Drive - Limiting Distance Agreement

2023-01-09 SR - Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement - 720 Apricot Drive

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to a limiting distance (no-build) agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited, for the property located at 20-720 Apricot Drive:

a)    the proposed limiting distance agreement appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023, for the property at 20-720 Apricot Drive between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023, to approve the limiting distance agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Southside Construction Management Limited, for the property at 20-720 Apricot Drive, and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to execute the agreement on behalf of The Corporation of the City of London as the adjacent property owner.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed

2.7   Building Division Monthly Report - October 2022

2023-01-09 SR - October 2022 Building Division Monthly Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

2.8   1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2022-12-14 CACP Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on December 14, 2022, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.1   600 Sunningdale Road West - Phase 2 Special Provisions

2023-01-09 SR - 600 Sunningdale Road West - Sunningdale Court Phase 2 - SPs - 39T-18501_2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Acting 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 Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the subdivision of land legally described as RCP 1028 PT Lot 16 RP 33R13891, PT Part 1  RP 33R16774 Parts 3 to 10, municipally known as 600 Sunningdale Road West, located on the south side Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Richmond Street:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the Sunningdale Court Subdivision, Phase 2 (39T-18501_2) appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023, 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 January 9, 2023, as Appendix “B”; and,

c) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfil its conditions.   (2022-R05D)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.2   600 Sunningdale Road West - Phase 3 Special Provisions

2023-01-09 SR - 600 Sunningdale Road West - Sunningdale Court Phase 3 - SPs - 39T-18501_3

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Acting 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 Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the subdivision of land legally described as RCP 1028 PT Lot 16 RP 33R13891, PT Part 1  RP 33R16774 Parts 3 to 10, municipally known as 600 Sunningdale Road West, located on the south side Sunningdale Road West, between Wonderland Road North and Richmond Street:

a) the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Sunningdale Golf and Country Ltd., for the Sunningdale Court Subdivision, Phase 3 (39T-18501_3) appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023, 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 January 9, 2023, as Appendix “B”; and,

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfil its conditions.   (2022-R05D)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.5   864 Hellmuth Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application

2023-01-09 SR - 864 Hellmuth Avenue - HAP22-081-L

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to pave a portion of the front yard for parking on the heritage designated property at 864 Hellmuth Avenue, within the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District, BE REFERRED back to a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated January 6, 2023 from M. Greguol, Heritage Planner, noting the applicant’s request to extend the timeline for consideration.   (2022-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   88 Chesterfield Avenue

2023-01-09 SR - 88 Chesterfield Avenue Z-9552

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Amy Liu, relating to the property located at 88 Chesterfield Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R3-2 Special Provision (R3-2(_)) Zone;

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

  • M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of the applicant;

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 by providing 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 Policies and Our Tools; and,

-           the requested zoning to permit a three-unit converted dwelling facilitates the development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   634 Commissioners Road West

2023-01-09 SR - 634 Commissioners Road West Z-9541

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes (c/o Farhad Noory), relating to the property located at 634 Commissioners Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i) the façade for the new residential development to the east of the existing single detached dwelling shall have a first-floor grade at least 0.6 metres lower than the existing dwelling first floor grade;

ii) at least one step down shall be required within the front façade and/or foundation for the proposed townhouse building west of the existing heritage dwelling;

iii) provide 1.8-metre-tall privacy fencing along property lines adjacent to residential parcels;

iv) for landscape strips along a public street, add at least one tree per every 12 metres, or every 15 metres otherwise;

v)  retain as many mature trees as possible, especially along Commissioners Road West and along the east and south property lines between the proposed development and the adjacent single detached dwellings;

vi) relocate the parking away from the view terminus into the site and buffer the parking from the amenity space with landscaping and/or low landscape walls; and,

vii) consider two small parking areas outside of the view terminus to maintain as many mature trees along the south property line as possible;

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

  •    a project fact sheet;

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    a communication dated January 5, 2023, from W. Smith;

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

  •    M. Davis, siv-ik planning and design;

-    M. Melanson; and,

-    W. Smith;

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 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 Policies and Our Tools;

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to amend the recommendation to include a new part b) viii), request the Civic Administration review the Tree Preservation Plan further, specifically with respect to the locust tree;

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   867-879 Wellington Road

2023-01-09 SR - 867-879 Wellington Road - Z9550

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Bates Real Estate Corporation, relating to the property located at 867-879 Wellington Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Highway Service Commercial (HS1/HS4) Zone, TO a Highway Service Commercial and Associated Shopping Area Commercial (HS1/HS4/ASA1) 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 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 Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type; and,

  • the proposed zoning amendment would appropriately broaden the set of service/retail uses permitted on the site, most notably retail stores. The additional commercial uses intended for the site would be compatible with the existing development context and will not generate significant land use conflicts with adjacent properties.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   600 Third Street

2023-01-09 SR - 600 Third Street OZ-9542

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of MHBC Planning on behalf of City Centre Storage, relating to the property located at 600 Third Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to change the designation of the subject lands FROM a Light Industrial Place Type TO a Commercial Industrial Place Type on Map 1 – Place Types;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended above) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC2/RSC4/RSC5(_)) 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 further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes economic development and competitiveness by providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment uses;

  • the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Commercial Industrial Place Type; and,

  • the recommended amendments are appropriate for the site and facilitate the reuse of the existing buildings with a use that is compatible within the surrounding context.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   1350 Trafalgar Street (Z-9548)

2023-01-09 SR - 1350 Trafalgar Street - Z-9548

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by McFalls Storage o/a Forest City Storage, relating to the property located at 1350 Trafalgar Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a General Industrial (GI1(8))  Special Provision Zone TO a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC4(_)) Special Provision Zone;

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

  • M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  • 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 conforms to the in-force policies of the Brydges Street Area regarding commercial uses on lands within the Light Industrial Place Type;

  • the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of an otherwise underutilized industrial warehouse within an existing area that already facilitates both industrial and commercial uses; and,

  • the proposed amendment will assist in transitioning the area south of the railway corridor to commercial-oriented uses which are appropriate for the existing mixed-use landscape.  (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   4th and 1st Reports of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2022-11-17 ECAC Report 4

2022-12-15 ECAC REPORT 1

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the delegation from S. Levin, Chair, Ecological Community Advisory Committee, with respect to the 4th and 1st Reports of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee from its meetings held on November 17, 2022 and December 15, 2022, respectively:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the resignation of P. Almost:

i) the resignation of P. Almost BE RECEIVED with regret; and,

ii) the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE REQUESTED to appoint Dr. Eric Dusenge, a previous member of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC), to fill the vacancy with a term ending concurrently with other members of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee (ECAC); it being noted that Dr. Dusenge previously served on the EEPAC and has previously submitted his application for ECAC;

b)  clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 5.1 to 5.4, inclusive, of the 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information;

c)  the Working Group comments relating to the properties located at 92 and 96 Tallwood Circle BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration;

d)  clause 4.2 of the 1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee related to the property located at 2060 Dundas Street BE AMENDED to read as follows:

“the following actions be taken with respect to the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 2060 Dundas Street:

 

i) the Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

ii) the Forestry Department BE REQUESTED to investigate the property to the East of 2060 Dundas Street as there is a storage facility and an unopened right of way through a tree preservation area;”

e) a representative from Financial Planning and Policy BE INVITED to attend the January 19, 2023 meeting of the Ecological Planning Advisory Committee to provide an update on proposed budget matters relating to matters including, but not limited to, Environmentally Significant Areas, Conservation Master Plans and Stormwater Management; and,

f)  clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1 and 6.2 of the 1st Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated January 4, 2023, and heard a verbal presentation from S. Levin, with respect to the above-noted matters.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   942 Westminster Drive

2023-01-09 SR - 942 Westminster Drive - Z-9526

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Jim Rimmelzewaan, relating to the property located at 942 Westminster Drive, the proposed by-law  appended to the staff report dated January 9, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 24, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) and Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO an Agricultural (AG2), Environmental Review (ER) and Agricultural Special Provision (AG2(_)) Zone;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is intended to support an accompanying consent to sever application;

  • the recommended amendment is not intended to impact the character of the agricultural area and is solely intended to recognize the existing site conditions; and,

  • the proposed use will co-exist in harmony with the adjacent land uses, and considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses, and will not create a net increase in the number of buildable lots.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   400 Southdale Road East

2023-01-09 SR - 400 Southdale Rd E - SPA21-118

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by LJM Developments, relating to the property located at 400 Southdale Road East:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development:

i) noise, dirt and safety during construction; and,

ii) the safety of existing houses and swimming pools during excavation;

b) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

  • staff presentation;

  • the applicant’s presentation; and,

  • a communication dated January 3, 2023 from E. Ali;

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

-  J. Ariens, IBI Group.   (2022-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:04 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 14 minutes)

Good afternoon everyone, it’s four o’clock, and I’d like to call the second meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. Just for information for the public, please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabeg, Podden, Notinnae, Lenna Peiwach, and the Adwadron.

We honor and respect the history and language as a culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today as representatives of the people of the city of London, we’re grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports from readings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact PAC at London.ca, that’s P-E-C at London.ca, or 519-661-2489 extension-2425.

At this point in time, I’d like to call for any disclosures of peculiar interest. Seeing none, we will move to the consent items. We have eight consent items, and I will be pulling 2.5 as per the staff referral memo that we got in our edits. Are there any other items that committee would like pulled?

Councillor Frank. Repal 2.1 as well, please. Councillor Hawkins. Yes, Mr.

Chair. I don’t need to really pull them, that’s 2.1, which is already being pulled, maybe 2.2 as well then. All right, so just for the committee’s information, we will be bringing those that are pulled 2.1, 2.2. Hi guys, hi, how are you?

Just to request that all people that are streaming in, please mute, thank you very much. We were pulling 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5, are there any other, Councillor Frank? If I just have questions, can we also pull 2.3? Yeah, there’ll be an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, but they’ll be voted in their entirety.

Any other items that Councillor or the committee would like to pull? Okay, so we will be putting those to the end of our meeting at deferred matters and additional business as per the new procedure we’re adopting. So we have now 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8, so I will go to the committee to make a motion to put that on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, second by Councillor Lewis, and I’ll open the floor for comments or questions.

Councillor Frank? Sorry, where is it? Yes, for 2.3, I had some questions about the audit and accountability fund report that we got from staff, so can I just wrap the phone? Sorry, yeah, please go ahead and through the chair and I’ll address the staff.

So through the chair, on page 77 of the original agenda, I noticed that through the process review that the applicant of the development files, the project site plan of files usually has the file for about 60% of the time for admin applications and then 64% of the time for standard applications. So staff having it for 40% and 36%. So I’m just wondering through this process analysis, if staff have been looking at timeline requirements for the applicant to resubmit in time so that it doesn’t trigger the bill 109 effect of having to refund. So I’m just wondering what has kind of been looked at to make sure that the turnaround time getting it back from the applicant won’t impact the refundability.

I’ll go to staff for that. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. The bill 109 timelines that are associated with site plan, maybe I’ll take a step back and briefly talk about the process for site plan.

Site plan starts with an initial application of the submission of all the plans and drawings and reports. Under the new rules of bill 109, we have 30 or 60 days to provide a response to the applicant, provide effectively conditional approval. We’re maintaining our previous timeline of 30 days, administrative applications, which are more small scale of nature. We typically look for about 15 to 20 days.

As long as we meet that 60 day timeline, the clock or the bill 109 obligations have been achieved, the way site plan works is that you go kind of back and forth to satisfy all the requirements of staff’s comments of the initial review of the plans. So you might see in the audit and accountability report discusses about resubmissions. And on average, it’s about three to four resubmissions for a standard application, about two to three for an administrative application. There is no timeline associated with that under the act.

At that point, there’s opportunities for appeals if the applicants aren’t too keen on how long the process is taking, but generally work together with staff to meet obligations and timelines of their expectations. So there is no timeline associated once you meet that initial conditional approval. We strive to meet our timelines in our file manager document, which have, again, noted timelines on how long it’s gonna take us to review our site plan materials. But we typically can’t control how long that gap takes.

We call it the chest clock has been very eye-opening and informative for us as well. And hope to help reduce that by working with our colleagues in the development sector on how we can reduce that, because it creates more file load for us and more time and uncertainty for us as well. So there’s mutual benefits to that. Councilor.

Thank you, that’s very helpful. And my understanding is this process review is just for site plan. So then I’m just also wondering for rezoning, if the kind of similar time clock thing is being looked at for that process as well. Staff, thank you through the chair.

So the time clock for the rezoning is a little different. We don’t have the same time clock. So any delays in the rezoning process would impact the 90 days. And we would be looking at refunds.

What we’re trying or looking at doing is moving a lot of that issue resolution prior to an application through additional consultation. We’re still pretty early on and determining what that’s going to look like, but that’s the intent is to do a little more consultation and address those issues earlier on. So there’s not as much back and forth through the application. Councilor Frank.

Thank you. And through the chair, I have a different question. So on page 84 of the original agenda, it was discussed that there are going to be some changes to community consultation. And I was just wondering if you could maybe walk me through a bit about what that looks like for community consultation through the changes of the process.

I’m going to go to staff through the chair. I’m not 100% sure what exactly the community consultation was about in terms of the zoning by-law and official plan amendments. Again, what we’re looking at doing is ensuring that’s held prior to an application coming in. Again, community consultation will slow down the process within that 90 days.

So it will be a requirement of complete application and part of that original submission. So that’s kind of the idea for the official plan and zoning by-law amendments. Councilor. Thank you.

Last question about the process assessment. I was wondering, I noticed that there was a no mention in the report about staffing requirements. So I just was wondering if that was something that was being examined at a later date. Like if, I’m just wondering if, for example, staff are at capacity or if they’re over capacity, if that’s causing some of the delays.

So I’m just wondering if there’s any comments on if that’s going to be looked at eventually or it was included, maybe just doesn’t show up on the report. You want to staff? Sorry. Okay, through the chair.

In terms of staffing, in terms of my area, we are getting up to complement. Obviously, experience is a major thing. We have a lot of new staff, which does make things a little more difficult with given the complexity of all the applications coming in. We do have a very high volume right now of OPA’s, ZBA’s variances and consent.

So we are stretched fairly thin, but I think we’re doing our best. And, you know, when Bill 109 comes in, we’ll take a look at if we need more resources, which likely will be. Councilor. Any other comments or questions?

Councilor Hawkins. Yes, thank you, Chair, and through you to staff. I do want to thank you for the report, and I know there’s a lot of work that has gone into this to streamline our process. And it’s great to know that the provincial government has given us a few more months here to make all this happen too, which is really important, that we can get it right without the pressures.

I do want to just make a quick comment around improving communications through the process. I think that’s really important the more we communicate, understand one another, and get these applications moving forward is really important. And I’m glad to read that it’s ideal to have one-on-one meetings with the applicant as well. I understand that, you know, sometimes applications, if you just see the paper, it’s harder for it to get through the process.

When you meet one-on-one, there’s more of a personal relationship or a formal relationship that can identify and communicate in an easier way. Hopefully that will help the process along. Do have a question around, and I just want to say that’s a really important part, I think, to bringing forward these applications faster. It is ideally to have those one-on-one as difficult as it can be sometimes.

I do think the building developers appreciate the contact that they do have with staff. I do have a question around the turnaround performance of these applications. And I’m just going to refer to the comments around before Bill 23, 69% of fees would be returned to applicants, so that’s quite a bit of money. And I know we’re coming up with a new process to make sure that it’s going to be lower.

Will we be given, or how will committee and council be reported to with these costs that may be borne by residents? Good staff, a lot. Through the chair, I don’t think it’s been decided in terms of how we’re going to report out on those timelines. You’ll likely be made aware at the time you see an application if it is beyond the 90 days.

So you would be aware, or if you were looking to refer something back, we’d let you know that it was going to extend past the 90 days. It’s something we can do if you want it mid-year, end of the year, kind of an update on how many refunds we had to do throughout the year. It’s something we can probably easily do, but we haven’t strategized how we’ll deliver that to you yet. Councilor Oppens?

Yes, Mr. Chair, if I may just make that comment, I think it would be helpful to committee to sort of see where we’re at once we get things going. It’s really hard to keep track of all these applications. I understand that we’ll be given notice in our recommendations and reports that if we do not make the decision, it will be, we may be in a bit of a predicament, but I think recording down the road will be helpful.

So thank you for allowing us to ask these questions. Thank you. Councilor Lewis, thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you.

I just want to do a very quick follow-up question for our staff, picking up on something that Councilor Frank raised, which is the public consultation piece. In terms of it being in a pre-application period and being part of a completed application, we often, through our PPMs here, are sending direction to staff that site plan approval authority be requested to consider. That’s not a mandate that all of these things have to be done, but it’s a to consider. So with the public consultation now being part of a pre-application process and being submitted as part of a completed application, what does that look like in terms of timelines for those items that site plan authority may be requested to consider, but are not required to meet all of, in order to advance an application forward, because I do hear some concerns that all we’re doing is front-end loading a time for before the clock starts ticking, rather than the clock starts ticking when all of those things may not necessarily have been resolved, but were in fact part of the application submission.

The staff, thank you, throughout, through you, Chair. I think that there may be some confusion. Site plan is delegated authority to staff. I would suggest of the 120 or so that we get a year.

There may be a small percentage, maybe five to 10, that come in through public site plan. That process will not change. It’ll still come to this committee much like, there’s an agenda item on later this evening. There won’t be pre-consultation required as part of the submission comments for the application.

I think maybe the previous discussion was more with respect to any sort of voluntary community meeting through the rezoning process. That would happen prior to submitting an official plan or zoning by-law amendment application. Councillor, any other questions or comments? If I may, take me to allow just a quick follow-up on Councillor Frank’s comments regarding staffing.

I noticed in the October report that we’re starting to see a slowdown in applications coming forward and et cetera, is that, and this is from October, any anecdotal evidence that that trend is continuing? Are we coming off of peak times and is staffing? Is that lessening the load on existing staff or planned staff additions? And what effect is that having a current turnaround time and applications?

Through the chair, we don’t have actually any information that I have available that says it’s slowing down or anything. I can say, you know, before the holidays, to get quite a number of applications in, it doesn’t feel like it’s slowing down. And I know generally the new year things pick up. So, you know, it comes in waves, usually the summers are a little slower in terms of applications, but it’s definitely picking up from what I’ve seen coming in my inbox.

Okay, thank you very much. There are no other questions or comments, and we have the consent items on the floor moved and seconded, so I will call the vote. Let’s take the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. We’ll move on to the schedule items. Many of the seven PPMs are public participation meetings and one delegation from Mr. 11.

The first schedule item of 3.1, this is on 88 Chesterfield Avenue. We have the staff report on that. Sorry, so I will look to the committee now to open the PPM of Councilor Hillier, seconder by Councilor Lewis, and we’ll call the vote. In the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. So we have the staff report and their recommendation. I’ll open the floor right now to any technical questions that the committee might have of staff. Seeing none, and I will ask if any applicant wants to have a presentation.

I see a gentleman up there. Please state your name, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Matt Campbell.

A partner was the only Capriamel. I don’t have a presentation planned, but I would like to say it is nice to be back in front of committee for the first time in person in almost three years. It’s nice to see some familiar faces here. We’ve read the staff report.

I certainly agreeable with the recommendation. Happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. Thank you.

And we are happy to be back and hit in person as well. I will go to members of the public. We don’t have anybody on a list, but if there anybody here or we have on the phone, I would like to speak to this. This is the time.

I don’t see anyone here in the gallery. I’ll go to the clerk. Is there anyone? Through you, Mr.

Chair, there is no one on Zoom. Okay, thank you. Then I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hillier, seconder, Councillor Hopkins.

I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. So I’ll go to committee now.

We have a recommendation from staff. I’ll open the floor for comments, questions, or motions, et cetera. Councillor Lewis. I’ll move the staff recommendation to approve.

I have a seconder, Councillor Hillier. We have a motion on the floor, moved and seconded. I’ll go to committee members for any other comments or questions. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we’re moving on to 3.2, which is 634 Commissioners Road West. I will ask for a motion to open the PPM.

Councillor Hopkins, second. Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

So we have the staff report and the added fact sheet as well. That has been a part of the R added agenda. Are there any technical questions for staff from the committee? Councillor Frank.

I think it’s technical, but through the chair, I guess one of my questions again is the Parkland Cash and Liu and the impacts of Bill 23 on that. And I’m just wondering if staff know, since it’s asking for Cash and Liu and Bill 23 is gonna take that ability away. Like, do we know when that’s triggered, I guess, if that’s a technical question? Mr.

Peace. - Thank you. Through the chair, Parkland is still a requirement through the building permit process. So it would be checked off as part of the building permit review process.

So it would not necessarily be picked up through the site plan anyways, in some cases, it would be on stage. Councillor, any other technical questions? Okay, if I will go to the applicant, oh, I’m sorry. Councillor Preble, who has joined us.

Do I have some questions through the chair to the staff? We have within couple of blocks or a couple of hundred meters for applications in this area. Are there any plans in terms of the commissioners widening the road, just east of, sorry, just west of Wonderland? Staff, through the chair, there are plans as a result of one of the applications down the road.

We looked into it in 2033, as one of them will be widened to four lanes. Commissioners road there, I’m sorry. Just to follow up, wouldn’t be better kind of to start negotiating because these four developers, three for sure potentially four, if they’re going to be building on, wouldn’t this be the better time to negotiate with them in terms of— Councillor, I’m just going to restrict you to technical questions right now, as opposed to, I think that’s more of a, you can get into that in the debate format, if you don’t mind. Thank you.

If there’s no other technical questions, I’ll look to the applicant if they would like to present. Good afternoon, Chair Lehman, members of committee. That’s Mike Davis here, I’m a partner with Civic Planning and Design in London here today, representing Royal Premier Holmes, who are the owner and developer of this project at 634 Commissioners Road West. I’ll just, I’ll be very brief with my comments, but I want to say that we are fully in agreement with the staff report on your agenda and the bylaw that’s being recommended.

Do want to acknowledge the work of your planning staff and helping us navigate this application forward and doing so as quickly as possible. It’s been great to work with them through the formal application process, but for our team and members of the neighborhood, this is a discussion and a process that kicked off even before then. Starting back in April, we invested a significant amount of time to talk to residents. We carried out a multi-phase engagement strategy for this project.

It was an evolving conversation that ultimately had a lot of influence on the design that we ended up with here. Through that process, we know that we had 223 unique views of our project webpage. So we had 170 households in our circulation radius. We know actually we were able to reach a very high proportion of them.

In terms of the project itself, we’ve worked really hard to ensure that it’s hitting all the key principles of the London Plan. Just for example, you’ll see we’re retaining and have allowed for the designation of the full volume of this original 1870 Georgian style dwelling. And we’ve incorporated that into the development plan. These new townhouses, these will be street oriented.

So they’re gonna have front doors and stoops oriented towards Commissioner’s Road. Driveways and garages will be tucked in behind from the rear. So that’ll help us to maintain, you know, a pedestrian oriented type of streetscape and also retain a number of mature trees that exist in that front yard area. Also, we baked into the zoning bylaw a special regulation that will preserve a healthy tree retention zone in the rear yard or a green buffer.

And also through this process, we have committed to keeping the building height at a maximal three stories. So with those features, we think this is a really sensitive approach to infilling the site. Something that’s gonna provide much needed, you know, missing middle style housing in a way we think compliments and enhances the neighborhood. So with those comments, I’ll just conclude.

I do appreciate your time and consideration today mentally and will be available to answer any questions but the project that you have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

I’ll now go to the public for any comments on this item. I see a lady up in the top right. Please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much.

Yes, hi. My name is Mary Malonson. I’m a resident of 665 Commissioners Road West. We are right across the street.

And I have been chatting, I’ve talked with Olga and I’ve talked with my counselor, Paul. And the concern that I have in several of our other unit dwellers across the street is that civics done such a wonderful job. It’s such an elegant, beautiful info that we actually wanna close any window that it could change because when we get our notices, we see the asterisk plan may change, plan may change. And then I notice that the density that’s being asked to be changed is much higher than the units that are actually being shown in the proposal.

And coming from another street in another city, we’ve had this challenge where once the density is approved, then the plan design changes. But we don’t get the normal notice by writing. And then all of a sudden, if we’re not diligent, it goes to the maximum that the density would allow, which I believe in this case is 25 or 26 single dwelling units as opposed to 11. So our request is to shut that door by putting a provision in the approval that it doesn’t go any higher than 11 units.

There is a traffic access and egress problem coming out of our unit, coming off of Notting Hill with no light. And it’s very, very busy street already. And with all the e-commerce extra traffic that goes in and out of units, that’s about as maximum as that footprint can allow as far as we’re concerned. So either that provision that Olga said can be put in if there’s enough concern that it doesn’t go any higher than the original design in the number of units, or at least giving us written and formal notice of any change that increases the number of dwellings that they’re proposing with the design change.

And I also found out from Olga that there’s no traffic study that’s part of their mandate. But I actually believe there should be a traffic study because of all the units that are being proposed in between Wonderland and Notting Hill. I think there’s four. We’re only one this 11 units as closest to us.

So I do believe and we do request that a traffic study be done as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions from the public?

The gentleman up on the left, please state your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Council. My name is Wayne Smith. I own the small commercial building at the corner of Notting Hill and Commissioners Road, which is adjacent to this proposed development.

My company has been operating out of this building since we purchased it in 2005. And I just wanna say that during this public consultation done by the developer, I was never informed. I never got a call, nothing, no letter or anything about what they were proposing or what they were planning. So I just wanna state that I was never involved in that process, even though I directly am adjacent to this property.

Regarding my office building, of course I spend many hours there. My staff and I will object to the loss of daylight, which comes in through our windows on our east side. The setbacks and the construction height proposed in this plan will cast this side of my building in perpetual shadow. I note that none of the applicant sketches show their building from my property’s point of view.

I also note that the plan has been revised to a height of three floors due to the visual aesthetics or conflicts with the heritage home. My building was built in a style which blends in with the single family homes in the area and is frequently mistaken for a house by visitors and delivery people. It is less than two stories in height on its eastern side and was built with a setback of almost four meters. The heritage home is actually taller than my building.

So even a three story structure immediately adjacent to my building is not desirable. I note that the development proposed for 584 commissioners road was rezoned as R5721, which appears to stipulate a minimum setback of three and a half meters with a six meter setback for a two story stacked town block in the rear. I feel it is fair to ask that the smaller of the two buildings being proposed here, the one immediately adjacent to my property be limited to two stories in height if the setback is not increased as was done for 584 commissioners road. Doing so might allow for the retention of a large mature oak tree that is close to the property line on the applicant side.

A cedar hedge in a mature maple tree on the property line will almost certainly be impacted by the proximity of this construction. I commend the attention given to the preservation of the existing house, which I understand was built in an around 1850. I knew the former owners and heard their stories of the house and the surrounding area and especially of the large locust tree that is adjacent to the house. Carolyn Glass was especially fond of that tree and it is likely well over a hundred years old.

And I asked that some consideration be made to keep the tree if at all possible. It would be sad if not even a single tree could be saved on this park land setting of a property. I happened to live just on the other side of Wonderland Road backing onto commissioners. And when that road was widened a few years ago, many trees were cut down and never replaced.

There apparently is no room for new trees. What we will notice the most when these developments and road widening come to this area of commissioners road will be how utterly barren the landscape will be without these trees. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Any other comments or questions from the public? Is there anyone online? Look to the committee to close the PPM. There were a number of a couple of questions that were raised by folks speaking and I’d like to go to staff on those.

Tell us once let’s assume an application is approved can a design change, a significant design change happen or density once an application receives the zoning approval? Through the chair, as a result of the public circulation of this application, staff did limit the density on the property to 25 units per hectare. So 11 units is the most they can get through that process. And also as mentioned, the height’s been restricted to three stories as opposed to the four that was initially applied for.

So the reality is the built form is going to look very similar no matter how it comes in, there’s limited options given the space of the property, but no more than 11 units can be developed on the property. Thank you. And has there been a traffic study done for this application? Through the chair, as noted, given the modest intensity of this development, no traffic impact study is required for that scale of development on the property.

Okay, thank you. And the final question, look what’s the delivery area around the property for notice of the application? Through the chair, so the delivered area is 120 meters. The staff or the city notice did make it to the neighboring property.

I can’t comment on the notice sent out by the applicant as part of their process, okay? Thank you. I will look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Hill here, second, Councillor Lewis, and I will call the vote.

closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I will go to the committee now for questions, comments, motions, et cetera. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the public for coming out. I also want to thank you for asking my number one question that the public had, which is around what is this development going to look like, and as we approve here, this recommendation tonight, I was really glad to hear that it is going to be 11 units and the height being a three-story, not four-story, and not more than going up from 25 units per hectare.

I think that’s really important. And I want to thank the applicant too, ‘cause it didn’t start from there and working with the community is really important to come up with what’s best for the whole community. And I will be moving this motion. I am supportive of it going forward.

So I don’t have a problem. I would like to add though, I know a great deal has been done this development around the heritage home, and obviously the importance of keeping that height down around the heritage home. But is it possible, I see in the recommendation that B5 retain as many mature trees as possible, especially along Commissioners Road West and along the East and South property lines between the proposed development and the adjacent single detached dwellings is noted in the recommendation. I would like to see if the committee would be amenable or friendly amendment to adding that the locustree be taken into consideration to be retained with that.

I am supportive of this development. There’s a lot of development going on. Council Prebo spoke to the business of this area and what’s to come. There is a lot of changes going on, but I know in my past experiences when it comes to transportation studies that there’s a lot of leeway for movement.

This intensity is gonna happen on Commissioners Road. It is an arterial road. It is hopefully one day creating more transit space and usability when we do these infills. I do like the access coming onto Commissioners Road.

I think that will help the community when it comes to movement within the neighborhood that it be kept outside of the community as people move around. So I am in favor again, I’ll be supporting this and asking for a friendly amendment to add the locustree to looking at preserving it as it goes through the process. Thank you. Thank you.

So we have a motion on the floor with an amendment regarding a tree. Do I have a seconder for that? Councilor Frank and Councilor Lewis, I’d like to speak to that. I just wonder if staff have any comments in terms of adding another tree to consideration on the site plan given the work that’s been done already, whether this has already been looked at or not.

You know, I honestly don’t wanna ask staff to do the same job twice. I’ll go to staff on that. Thank you through the chair. So a tree preservation plan was submitted as part of the application.

My understanding from where the locustree is, it will be removed as part of this application. And that was deemed appropriate through our review of the tree preservation plan. So I did again to the point, we might be duplicating efforts, but it is something we can look at again if desired by the committee. Councilor, I’ll just say that’s fine by me in terms of knowing that staff have done it already.

I’m not supportive of the amendment. I am supportive of the staff recommendation. Councilor Hawkins. Thank you.

And I appreciate the response from staff. I know it’s been looked at. And I’m hearing that this development won’t go forward with then if we keep the locustree, is that correct? Good stuff.

Through the chair, it would likely result in the loss of a unit, the west side of the development. Councilor. Hmm, hmm, hmm. Yeah, I’m kind of perplexed a little bit because I think the developer has done, the developer has done his job in terms of keeping this development and the units lower and not going up high.

I am very familiar with this lot. So I go by quite often and there are a number of mature trees. And I think there has to be some regard. I know it’s in the recommendation to retain as many mature trees.

I would maybe make a friendly amendment to that to review it one more time to see if it is possible. I’ll just say that. Okay, so we have a motion and your amendment to your amendment would be to just review it? I’m satisfied with retaining as many mature trees as possible, but I do think that certain trees should be retained and to review the tree.

And if it is possible, I don’t want to create a problem with this development because I am satisfied the intensity and the height I am supportive of that. But I do think reviewing and looking at trees when development occurs, as they proceed, it is important. It is an asset to the community as I see it. And I’ll stay with my friendly amendment to review it again.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor with that amendment. I’ll let people speak to that. But my understanding would be if the committee is not, if you’re personally not in favor of that amendment, then you would vote against this. And then a new motion would be put on the floor with the staff recommendation.

Councilor Frank. Just a question through the staff. I just wanted to clarify with this, then if we do pass that amendment, would it require coming back to PAC or would it just go through staff and the developer? Go to staff through the chair.

It would not, this item would not have to come back to planning committee. It would just go through to site plan and the developer. So my understanding is correctly, essentially it would be to staff to review it as directed by the committee. We’ve reviewed it.

We’re going to stick with the original plan and we’ll proceed as in that motion that we’re going to pass, if we pass it, it would be sufficient to the chair. That’s correct. It would all be dealt with that to site plan approval process to review. Any questions regarding that from committee members or Councilor Pribble as well?

Any comments? Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I’m just going to reiterate and I’m going to follow up on the comment that staff provided. I’m not going to support it as amended. We have a tree protection plan that has been submitted. Staff have reviewed that, the work has been done.

And we’ve heard from staff that consideration would likely require the removal of one unit. And I think it’s really important for committee members to consider that, you know, and you think not just about this development but any development, but we saw it tonight. We’ve heard the work that the developer has put in to make this fit appropriately on the site. When we start taking away units, we start changing the financing for the builder and to Councilor Hopkins question about would this development not go forward?

The consequences of changing the financing of how this is going to happen could in fact result in a development not going forward. And while I appreciate the intent to ensure we’re preserving as many trees as possible, I think when a tree protection plan is submitted and the staff have reviewed it and they’re satisfied with the recommendation that they brought forward, that we should really not be moving into micromanaging which trees in the tree protection plan are more important to us than others. So I think this is one of those ones where we’re getting into the weeds and I think that we should be approving the staff recommendation as it was written and not amended. So if the amendment fails, then I will move the original staff recommendation.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments regarding this motion as amended, Councilor Fray? Through the chair to staff, I’m just wondering, I don’t actually notice a tree preservation report in this report and maybe I’m missing it. I’m just used to seeing it like as a separate item.

Like I see ecology, I see engineering, and I’m used to seeing like arborist report or like tree preservation report, and I can’t find it. I do notice their comments regarding tree preservation, but I’m just wondering if like they’re that’s missing or if I’m just not seeing it. Staff, through the chair, the tree preservation plan is on the city website posted with the application, Councilor. So just for clarification, it’s not in this report.

Through the chair, we don’t generally amend or attach reports with our reports as an appendix or anything. Comments coming from ecology will be attached, but generally not the entire submission material. That’s just for the website, Councilor. Through the chair, I just, again, this is not my second-pack meeting, but I’m thinking like, for example, at the last-pack meeting, we had a bunch of like sections like underneath of ecology.

There’s another section that usually says like arborist report and I remember like the skyline application had it, the south application had it in the last one. So I’m just wondering about the consistency ‘cause I do like to read the tree preservation reports and I just didn’t know if it’s gonna be in this report or if it’s gonna be on the website, like maybe if there’s, I don’t know, this is a general comment, but it’d be nice if it’s either maybe in like this report or if it’s never gonna be in this report, then I know to go on the website. So I don’t know, that’s more of a comment, I guess. Okay, thank you, Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, I’d just like to speak to my amendment if there’s someone else, a committee, just to sort of at the last word here and hoping I can get committee’s support on this amendment, which is really to review the tree, the locus tree that stands on the property. I appreciate that staff have done their due diligence and I appreciate the work that the applicant has done when the applicant does speak to the tree preservation plan. The applicant speaks to the enhanced green buffering zone along the property boundary and the retention of existing trees. And even in the recommendation, it does say that the applicant is to retain as many mature trees as possible.

I think it is fair to say, and given the importance of this development in the community and the retention of trees is important, it is, there are a number of mature trees and to emphasize the importance of that. As we approve this recommendation, I’m hoping the committee will support that. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the committee? I ask Vice Chair Lewis to take the chair. I’d like to speak to this. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I have one person on the speaker’s list and that would be Councillor Layman. Thank you. What struck me about this application is the work that the applicant did with the neighbourhood and it was a tricky application.

It involves a heritage building. And I really respect the collaboration that the applicant did with the neighbourhood and with the neighbours involved. So I think as was mentioned by the committee earlier, this is to throw a more sticking point in, I’m sure just by the nature of this, that if that had been possible to save this particular tree, it would have been done and I think that was confirmed. But from what we heard from staff, I am cognizant of the workload of staff right now and handling applications.

And my understanding from this motion would be that they would review it again. And if no change, it would go ahead. And I just personally think that would be redundant. So I won’t be supporting the motion as amended.

And we’ll see what happens after the vote. Those are my comments, Vice Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I do not have a view of Zoom, so I’m not sure if the clerk has any visiting Councillors with their hands up, but I have no one else on the speaker’s list here in Chamber, so I’ll return the chair to you.

Thank you. There’s no other comments or questions. We have a motion on the floor with an amendment to the staff recommendation and I will call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three.

Thank you, I’ll open the floor again to the committee, Councillor Lewis. I won’t move the original staff recommendation. The seconder, Councillor Hillyer. Any other questions or comments regarding this motion, Councillor Fray?

I just wanted to reiterate most of the comments that have already been said, but I also think that this was a great application and I was really impressed with the fact sheet that was put together by Civic, the consultant, just because it’s very clear and easy to understand as somebody without a planning background, I found it very comprehensive in aligning the community engagement and then how the applicant responded to it was really helpful. So I just wanted to say kudos to both Royal Homes and Civic as well. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? I will call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, no, we are moving on to, thank you. We are moving on to, well, 3.3867, 875 and 879 Wellington Road. I will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hillyer, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you.

We have a report from staff and their recommendation. I’ll go to committee now. If there are any technical questions for staff. Seeing none, I will go to the public.

Is there anyone that would like to speak to the committee regarding this particular application? I see none in the gallery. I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anybody online. Scott Allen, the applicant is here.

Sure. Mr. Allen, please go ahead. You have five minutes on behalf of the applicant.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, there’s the committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m the MHBC planning applicant. At this time, we just want to simply express our support and planning recommendations for the planning staff report to this application.

We’d also like to thank staff for their attention to this proposal and for expeditiously processing application. Thank you for consideration. We’ll gladly answer any questions to any member. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no other speakers that I see in the gallery, no are online. So I’ll look for a motion to close the other participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillyer, and we’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I see Councillor Palosa has joined us. I will go to committee first to see if there’s any questions or comments.

Or if I see now, I’ll go to Councillor Palosa, and then back to committee for further discussion. Councillor Palosa, the floor is yours. Thank you for letting me speak at your committee. As the word Councillor in this application is within it.

Supportive of staff’s recommendation as it falls into the correct uses that are already in this area. Recognizing this is also be part of the bus rapid transit corridor as well. So happy to see people coming early. My question through you to staff is recognizing that one of the retailers have already reached out to staff behind the scenes.

And there’s a notice of passing and then an appeal period. Is it correct that none of these notice of passings or appeal period can dart until after this has been approved at council on January 24th? I’ll roll staff in that. Through the chair, as per the planning act, that is correct.

So we needed a decision from council, the notice to be sent out in the appeal periods, 20 days from that notice being sent out. Thank you. A follow up through you, Mr. Chair, to staff quickly after council approves this on the 24th, would those notices go out in that time period start with the applicant?

Staff. Through the chair, that’s a function of clerks. I don’t want to speak on their behalf, but they’re generally within the week, within seven days to get it out. Councilor?

Is there anyone from clerks who could speak to that at this time? I will go to the clerk to speak to that timing. Through the chair, I apologize. That’s not my responsibility.

But I do know it’s usually within, they have up to 15 days. And I believe they try to get it out within the week. Councilor. Okay, doesn’t seem to be a specific reply available this evening, but that concludes my questions.

But Ms. Weislich powers does have her hand up as well. Maybe she could be of assistance. I will go to Ms.

Weislich powers. Thank you through the chair. I would suggest that as Ms. Lizinsky has indicated, they will be circulated within the legislative timeline, but I would be unable to give you an exact timeline because that will depend on what else is happening and what other notices are required.

But it will definitely be within the legislative circulation timeline. Councilor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And that concludes my questions on support of the application. Thank you. I’ll go to committee for questions, comments or emotions. Councilor Hopkins.

No questions. Happy you put the motion forward. Okay, I get a seconder, Councilor Hillier. Any questions or comments on the motion that’s on the floor?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we are now on to 3.4, 600 third street. Look for our motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councilor Lewis, a second, Councilor Hopkins. Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We have the staff report, any technical questions for staff at this time from the committee?

Seeing none, I will go to the applicant or here to speak to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Scott Allen, MHBC planning acting on behalf of the applicant.

We’d like to express our support for the recommendations that open with planning staff report for this application. We also wanted to agree with the findings set out in the report that establishing a self-storage use within the existing building arrangement would help to optimize existing building space at this location and in a manner that’s compatible with the surrounding development context and keeping with applicable planning policies. So thank you for your consideration and we’re glad the answer questions any members may have, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Allen. I’ll go to the public if there’s anybody here in the gallery would like to speak to this. There was your chance, Sir Clerk, is there anybody online? Through the chair, there’s no one on Zoom.

Okay, seeing no one indicating they would like to speak to this, I will look to the committee to close public participation meeting. Councillor Lewis, second. Councillor Hill here, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, I’ll open the floor to committee members for questions, comments or motions. Councillor Hill here. I’ll move the staff recommendation. We have a mover, can I get a seconder?

Councillor Lewis, questions or comments on the motion on the floor. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we are now at 3.5, 1350 Trafalgar Street, to committee to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hill here, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we have the staff report and recommendation before us are there any technical questions for staff at this moment from committee. Seeing none, I will go to the applicant for your chance.

Thank you, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Could you turn on your mic, I don’t think it’s, can you raise it up? How about now? There you go.

All right, thank you very much. Sorry, it’s been a while since, you know, the rock being a thanks though. Thanks to the committee and thank you very much to staff for processing this application. This is a bit of a unique one in that this property is kind of outlived its life as a general industrial property.

There’s been already some conversion of this property to self-storage and the current owner for city storage is looking to legalize that and really change this property from a former industrial property to a commercial property. You’ll see in the staff report that it does recommend approval with some site-specific regulations and we’re certainly in favor of the committee approving that. We have looked at the report and happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you.

I’ll now open up floor to any comments or questions and et cetera from the public. I wish to speak to this item. We’ll see anyone in the gallery. Clerk is already online.

To the chair, there’s no one on Zoom. Okay, thank you. We’ll go to the committee for motion to close the public participation meeting. Councilor Hillyer, seconded by Councilor Lewis.

I will call the vote. Yeah, I vote. I will call, ask to anyone who’s online. Please mute yourself and we can hear you in chambers.

Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll move to committee, Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to support the motion utilizing any existing building and not having it sit around empty. It’s something that I support.

So thank you to staff and the applicant for making us happy. Thank you, Councilor. I have a seconder for that motion, Councilor Hillyer. Any other questions or comments before I call the vote?

Councilor Hillyer. The only sad thing about this is I think we might lose yardigans, which is an amazing store in that property. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments or questions?

They don’t call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We are now down to 3.6.

We have Mr. Levin, Chair of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee with us to present the fourth and first reports of that committee. Mr. Levin, please go ahead, you have five minutes.

Chair, I wanted to introduce PEC and members of Council to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, as well as to invite you to attend our meetings. Currently, we’re meeting online, third Thursday of every month at 4.30. I wanna return to that matter briefly. Just to let you know, ECAC is a technical advisory committee and we stand ready to be given direction by this committee and Council, as to matters related to our mandate and hopes that Council will support any initiatives coming from the committee through PEC to Council.

Because it’s a technical advisory committee, I’ve been very active in recruiting faculty and students from Western University. And from that result, it’s a very diverse committee. It really doesn’t even need a diversity lens. It automatically becomes diverse.

And even last term, we had Mr. Wallace as a member of the committee. And actually a very important member of the committee because he asked really good questions. And I think it was helpful for his involvement to be there.

If you’re interested, I can tell you that we have on a number of measures, both people of color, women, most of our PhDs happen to be women. We have scientists in plant science. We have two hydrologists or people with water engineering experience, which has been very important because many of the applications we review are next to environmental features that are wetlands or water courses. We also have a land use planner and two master’s candidates, one in aquatic biology and another in plant sciences.

And I speak to that because I have a vacancy now on the committee and you’ll see in our item six, the fourth report, I’m asking the committee to support the application that is already on file for Dr. Marindy Eric Desengi, a previous member of a predecessor committee. He’s a post doctorate fellow in plant sciences and he’s been attending our meetings, observing our meetings anyway. So I’d like you as a committee to support having SPPC to support that application so we can get somebody there right away.

Finally, I’d like to point out that your advisory committee has been meeting since the middle of 2022, all online. And try to imagine if the new council had only been meeting online since its installation in November. You wouldn’t have the same feel, you wouldn’t have the same camaraderie. So asking your committee to initiate not only for ECAC but perhaps for all the other advisory committees.

If not a hybrid meeting opportunity, maybe every quarter at least meeting in person. We as an ECAC have yet to meet in person. And frankly, I heard the chair earlier in the meeting say it’s really good to be in person again. We would actually like to be in person for the first time after all this time.

So if PAC could at least initiate that and ask staff to make sure that that happens by the beginning of the second quarter of this year, it would be much appreciated. And I think it would improve the effectiveness of your advisory committee and other advisory committees. I thank you for your time, Mr. Chair.

And happy to answer any questions from committee and other members of council. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate that. Any comments or questions?

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you just very briefly and follow up to Mr.

Levin’s comments, I reviewed the application for the individual that they’re recommending. I’m satisfied that the applicant would be an excellent addition to the committee. Because as he indicated, it is on file. So it was possible to go back and look at that.

I think this is a very qualified individual who would feel the vacancy quite well. So I’ll be supportive of that. I will say to through you, Mr. Chair, Mr.

Levin, I think it’s inappropriate for standing committees to start trying to direct other standing committees to take some actions, but I will take this opportunity to offer personally, and not just as a member of this committee, but in my role as deputy mayor, to bring motion forward to SPPC for the next cycle to address the need for in-person meetings. Because I frankly agree with Mr. Levin about the importance of those. I can’t imagine having come into a new council and not having the opportunity to have sat down with Councillor Frank or other new members of council in person, and I think it’s important that our advisory committees are given that opportunity as well.

So I will extend my personal commitments to bring forward a motion to address that, Mr. Levin. Thank you, Councillor Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thank you.

And in quick consultation with the clerk, you’re absolutely right. That’s a matter for SPPC, but I think Mr. Levin makes some really good points. Any other comments or questions from the committee?

Councillor Frank. My question, I think, is for staff based on the committee reports. Is that okay to ask? That’s okay.

Yeah, okay, great. On the report dated December 15th, 2022, it looks like one of the working groups requested that the forestry department investigated property at 260 Dundas Street regarding a road through an ESA. And I just was wondering one, if those kinds of requests from committee, do they just like automatically happen or through approval of these minutes, would our approval of these minutes in their request then trigger staff to go out and do that assessment? I’ll go to staff on that.

Through the chair, I can’t speak to kind of the process of approving the advisory committees and where those recommendations or regulations go forward through. But I think in order to have it maybe more transparent, if you’re looking for that as a specific direction, you could make that resolution. Councillor? Through the chair then, yes.

I would like to request the forestry department do that investigation possible. So you’re making a motion? I think I am. I’m requesting that the request in the report.

Yeah, then we support the request in the soak. Okay, we have a motion. Can I have a seconder on that? Councillor Hopkins, comments on the motion for Councillor Lewis.

So this one perplexes me because I’m aware that there’s an active application in pre-consultation phase for this property. So an environmental impact study would be required for a successful application to come forward anyway. So I’m a little confused as to, and perhaps through you chair, our delegate might be able to offer some insight as well because when I was reading through this report, I did note this as well. And I checked both the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the City of London’s website, neither of which, through their mapping, indicate that this property is actually an ESA.

I did seem to find some indication that it might be an area that the Upper Thames might want to consider some further ecological evaluation on, but not that there was a formal ESA designation on this property. And through to our staff, as part of an active application, would an assessment of what I believe we have there is an unopened municipal road allowance. Would that not be assessed as part of the application process if the property owner at 2060 was to submit an application? Would staff on that?

So yes, we would have our ecologist staff reviewing any application that might come in and features that might be in there as part of an application if we were to receive one. No, I’m sorry. Okay, that’s helpful to know because from what I see on the geomapping on the city’s website is that the road is actually an unopened municipal road allowance, adjacent to 2060 Dundas, which is the Church of the Ascension property. So it’s not that a private road has been opened there.

It’s that we have an unopened municipal road allowance. Now, having done a site visit, there’s not actually a road there. It’s, there’s a corridor where there’s not vegetation, but it’s not actually a traversable road. No change to the soil has been made or anything.

So I appreciate EPAC’s concern here. And as they indicated, this was raised as part of an application being in pre-consult phase. So I’m just looking perhaps for some staff clarification or from our delegate in terms of whether or not we even need another motion or whether this is just part of the process moving forward. Councilor, I’m gonna go up to Mr.

Levin to provide some insight from the advisory committee’s perspective. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question that was raised at your advisory committee is not related to the work on 2060 Dundas Street East.

It’s the adjacent property to the East. It’s certainly not designated as an ESA. It’s potentially part of a larger woodland. It is in the tree preservation area.

So your committee, your advisory committee raised it at the advisory committee meeting because when it looked at the air photos, it noticed the intrusion into the woodland on the adjacent property. And because it’s a tree preservation area, that’s under the ambit of the forestry department. And that’s why the committee saw fit to put that element in its minutes. I hope that’s helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Levin. I see Ms. Westlake Power has her hand up.

I’m gonna go to the clerk right now. Thank you. Through the chair, I just wanted to offer some additional information for the committee’s consideration with respect to how these recommendations work through the committee and council process. So the recommendation that you see before you in part B of 4.2, which is on page 236 of the main agenda.

And that’s related to the forestry department be requested to investigate the property to the East of 2060 Dundas Street as there is a storage facility and a road through an environmentally significant area. Should this report be accepted by the planning and environment committee, that recommendation would move forward for action to council. And if approved at council, then staff would receive the the corresponding resolution letter and it would be incumbent upon staff to undertake this work. So a separate motion to that effect is not required.

Thank you for that guidance. We’ll go to councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I was going to say if committee does receive and approve this report, this would automatically be going forward. And again, at council. So my question through you, Mr. Chair, to staff is that a concern to staff?

Through the chair, that is not a concern that it would be going directly to forestry staff. I will note that through any planning application, planning and development staff and we’ll circulate forestry on that as well. So Mr. Chair, just to follow up with those comments from staff, we really don’t need a motion.

Happy to withdraw the motion. And I will be supporting this going forward. Thank you. I will go to the mover of the motion, Councilor Frank, to withdraw the motion.

Yes, happy to withdraw. Okay, so the motion has been withdrawn and we have a new motion on the floor from Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Lewis. Is there any discussion? Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So I’m just coming back to some detail we got from our delegate, Mr. Levin. I’m not concerned about forestry or planning investigating this situation.

It’d be part of their due diligence anyway. But my concern now is that the minutes from the advisory committee reflect a road through an environmentally significant area. And our delegate just indicated that that’s not actually accurate ‘cause it’s not an environmentally significant area. So I’m a little concerned that we’ve got some minutes from the advisory committee that are in question and how we treat whether it’s a significant woodlot or a wetland feature or some other natural feature is somewhat different than how we might treat something that’s already designated as an ESA.

So I’m a little bit concerned about the inaccuracy of what’s reflected in the minutes here. So I’m not sure how to proceed. I mean, I don’t think that we can be amending minutes from an advisory committee. They’re not our minutes.

So I’m a little bit at a stalemate as to how we might proceed in receiving this, noting at the same time that the specific reference to an environmentally significant area in section D part two is a matter up for question. I’ve been informed by the clerk that we could change 4.2B to clarify your concerns counselor. Okay, so through you then, Mr. Chair, I think part two, maybe rather than through an environmentally significant area, we might just change that to read a road through an area of environmental concern.

And maybe if you’ll allow, if we can seek some, perhaps a not of agreement or disagreement from our delegate who is the chair of that committee in terms of whether that would capture their intent. Mr. Levin. Thank you through the chair.

I would suggest if you strike environmentally significant area and I apologize for missing this in my review of the minutes and replace it with a tree preservation area that would, I believe, help. Thank you, Mr. Levin, Councillor Lewis. Then I would be very satisfied to change that through a tree preservation area.

Okay, so we’re making a slight amendment to the motion that was moved by Councillor Hopkins, I believe. Are you okay with that? Yes, I am. Good, and obviously the second there is.

So any comments or questions from the committee on that? I will go to staff for their comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just if we’re looking to clarify the wording, it is also an unopened right-of-way, not a road, if we wanted to make that change as well. I’m going to have the clerk read out the wording on this and make sure it’s okay with the committee staff and Mr. Levin as well get your thoughts on that. I think we’re getting there, go ahead, Clerk.

So part D relates to the property located at 2060 Dundas Street, II. The forestry department be requested to investigate the property to the east of 2060 Dundas Street as there is a storage facility and an unopened right-of-way through a tree preservation area. I’ll go to staff first, is that? Is that what you, does that satisfy your concerns?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I think that should be sufficient for staff to have direction at what to investigate. Okay, Mr. Levin, are you?

I agree. I see good nodding up there. I see good nodding from committee members here. So I think we’re all on the same page.

So just wait a second here for Councilor Hillier to return and indulge the committee or I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. In the meantime, I just want to thank Mr.

Levin for attending the PEC meeting here. It’s very helpful when we have chairs from advisory groups come in and get further explanations and invite us to meetings. I also look forward, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I do appreciate you bringing the request forward at SPPC on looking at how advisory groups can meet.

I’ve not only heard it here tonight, but I’ve heard it through other members of advisory groups, the need to at least touch base once in a while in person. So look forward to that coming forward at SPPC too. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor, and my comments, Mr.

Levin, thank you for coming today. And yeah, an email of when you think an advisory committee meeting would be of certain interest, I for sure would mind seeing that come out just as a reminder to drop in and hear the wisdom of certain very learned committee members for sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We’ll do endeavor to do that for members of Council. So seeing no other further questions or comments, we have a motion and seconded, I will put that on the floor for a vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on, 3.7 regarding 942 Westminster Drive.

I’ll look for committee motion to open the PPM, Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Frank, and we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we’ve had the staff report recommendation. I’ll open the floor for any technical questions for staff at this time.

Seeing none, I would normally go to the applicant. I’m informed that the applicant is not present. I will go to members of the public, if they would like to speak to this, the gallery here at Chambers, is no other people that look like want to speak to this. Any online?

Through the chair, there’s no one on Zoom. Thank you. We have no one Zoom, no one looking to speak to this, including the applicant. And then I will look for a motion to close the PPM, Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Hillier, call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll open the floor to committee members for comments, questions, motions, Councilor Hillier. I will move the staff recommendation. Can I have a seconder, please?

Councilor Frank, any comments or questions? Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, just a quick question for you to chair to staff just for the public’s sake, just in case someone is listening in on this recommendation, that what we are doing here tonight is really just recognizing the existing dwelling. We are not approving any other development.

It’s one confirmation. I’m gonna staff, through the chair, I can confirm no new development what results us were recognizing the new lot area created by a consent application. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor, any further questions or comments?

Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we have three points that we heard before, five 30, and it’s five 34, so we are okay.

This is regarding 400 Southdale Road East. I will look to committee to promotion to open. They put PPM, Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, I understand staff have a brief presentation to make on this item, so I will go to staff. Mr. Chair, my name is Mick Sondercock. I’m a site development planner with the City of London.

This is my file. I do have a presentation, it’s with the report. I do want to give a short sort of preamble though before we get into the application. Since we don’t tend to see public site planning meetings too often at planning and environment committee, especially in comparison to how often we see zoning by-law amendments, that this is a little bit of a different process for any sort of, sorry, new members of the committee or those that are sort of unfamiliar or need a little bit of a refresher on how we have a public site plan meetings.

The purpose of this application tonight is for the public to have additional input on the site design matters related to this application and for the committee to report any issues raised with the site plan approval authority, which has been delegated to staff. So what’s before you isn’t an application for approval or refusal, it’s just an additional opportunity for input as part of the site plan process as required by the H5 holding provision that was applied during the rezoning for this application. And I’m here to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Undercock. Any technical questions for staff at this point? Seeing none, I’ll open the gallery for any comments on Mr.

Wallace. I don’t see you rushing up to the mic. So I’ll assume not, I’ll see anyone else here. Any people joining us online clerk?

Yes, Carmen, please. Carmen, please go ahead. Please state your full name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. My name is actually John Ariens. I’m a planning consultant. Carmen works with me at IBI Group.

We are here on behalf of LGM developments. As staff pointed out, this is kind of an unusual process in that it’s a site plan application rather than a zoning. The zoning did raise a number of public concerns and through the guidance of Councillor Palosa, it was decided that the site plan would actually return before a public information meeting such as tonight. I’m here primarily to answer any questions.

What is before you is a very nice infill project, 179 units in a four, six and seven story step back building with enhanced landscaping and a really attractive design. So it’s a transit supportive development that provides substantial car parking, bike parking and has a very high walking score with commercial, institutional and employment uses in the immediate surrounding area. So we’re very pleased to have the site plan before you. We’ve actually had two open house meetings during the zoning process.

And I’m here to answer any questions that may come up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arrens.

Any other people that would like to speak to this online or do you see any others? Through the chair, the people here are all with the applicant. Okay, thank you very much. Seeing nobody else, I will look to a committee for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hopkins, second by Councillor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll open the Florida committee.

Any questions for the applicant or staff on this? This is just reporting on feedback from the public. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. And since this is about feedback from the public, I guess I would like to ask a question. I’m very supportive of this development. It’s great to see how it supports the London plan and it more or less fits it within the character of the community.

The question is around affordable housing and how we do affordable housing. And there was a question that has been asked from the public around how we do that and I understand in this recommendation, HTC will be taking on the four units that we are approving for affordable housing. And I wonder if staff could just speak to how and what opportunities, what this opportunity looks like in the city taking on these units, but also what tools are there available to us? Now that probably was a result of bonus thing, but now as we go forward, having opportunities for affordable units, what are we left with and what do we need to do as a council going forward with these new changes?

But my first question is really around these four units and how HTC will be taking on the responsibility. To staff, thank you, through you, Chair. This is a very unique circumstance. Admittedly, second council previously had seen bonus applications where there had been a certain percentage of units with a certain percentage of affordable market rate.

Depending on the circumstance and the lift required it could be anywhere from 80 to 90% or for a certain duration. In most, if not all of those cases, those would have all been rental type of developments. In this case, from what I gather through the rezoning process, which subsequently resulted in a bonus zone, this is intended to be condorized and conveyed to individual unit holders. It would ultimately result in the ownership through a condo corporation.

So that was the strategy employed through this zoning application where the four units, because there would be no tenant or landlord, like the other cases, the city saw an opportunity to obtain the units through conveyance to the city through municipal housing. And that’s how the bonus zone was written. So this is, I believe, the first and maybe the only situation through all the bonus zones that we have where there were four units that will be dedicated to the city through the process. Obviously that will come with some costs, like any other condo unit owner would have, but definitely a unique opportunity for the city to explore in terms of tools within the toolbox for affordable housing.

In terms of how the process works, so we’ll obviously take any comments we hear tonight. Doesn’t sound like there’s too many from the public. Obviously there was a few that came in through the mail, which is what we’ll try to work through. And once site plan approval is completed, we will prepare a development agreement as normal, but also a bonus agreement, which will obligate the owner to dedicate those four units to municipal housing to the city.

And through the condo process that will eventually create the ownership of those units, which then form the dedication to the city. And then our folks can do what they need to at them at that point. So certainly a unique opportunity. And when we’re excited to explore a little bit more, and we’re quite close to the end here of this application to get that next step realized once construction is complete.

In terms of kind of future tools that I may pass it over to Ms. O’Hagan to speak very broadly, maybe to some of the interim IZ provisions that we may be looking forward to. Yes, through the chair. So very high level, we will be shifting away from a bonus thing as a tool to secure some of these units.

As I’m sure you are aware of, the roadmap to 3,000 affordable units does align some other tools and opportunities that we can look forward to and partnering with the not-for-profit and the for-profit development industry to try and secure some of these units within kind of mixed tenure buildings going forward. In addition to that, looking at inclusionary zoning as an opportunity to get some of the units into more mixed ownership buildings as well. Thank you, Councilor. Yeah, thank you through the chair to staff, I really appreciate the answers to some of the questions around affordable housing and it’s good to see that we do have these, some tools that no longer will be allowed but looking at other opportunities.

So really we’ll be supporting the application going forward. It’s a great development and it’s good to know that we have four, one bedroom affordable housing units in there, thank you. Thank you, I see Councilor Palozas with us before I go to Councilor. I’ll just check with committee members if there’s any further questions that they might have, Councilor Frank.

I just wanna share, I thought that this was also a great application and I’m excited to support it. Couple of things, I really love seeing more bike parking spaces than car parking spaces, very exciting. And then also the amount of landscaped areas, so the trees, the perennial plants and the shrubs. I did have one question and I don’t know if it is within site plan authority, but is there a possibility to stipulate or encourage or require that some of those species, if not all, be native species or where possible?

Staff, thank you through the chair. It’s a comment we use very often in our site plan comments. Can’t speak to the actual percentage of native species in this mix, but it is definitely a comment that is made at first submission and very often repeated through second and third submission. So I can’t give you the exact number at this point.

If Minnesota and your cock has any indication at this point, you may be able to jump in, but it’s definitely a comment that we do make. Councilor? That’s good, thank you. Good, thank you.

I’ll go to Councilor Palosa. Thank you for recognizing me again at your committee. This application has also within Ward 12. And I’m asking for your support of it tonight.

The applicant has been very responsive to the community and the request as it’s come through in regards to planting, setbacks, garbage collection, the commercial that was originally on the property that will no longer be recognizing that this is highly a walkable community and there was resident concerns regarding traffic, parking and noise construction. So in realizing at the time, South London hadn’t seen a lot of applications. Just thank you to staff and the committee and the applicant for taking their time with the community to bring this forward. Absolutely raising the bar in regards to affordable housing in the city, that it’s just not the city having use of the units for XMI years that they’re actually gifted to the city all four units.

So that’s gonna make a long-term impact to help plan for Londoners to need those. So thank you again for your time tonight and asking for your support. Thank you, Councilor. Any other questions or comments?

If the committee will indulge me, I’ll just have one. When we have had bonusing with affordable units, a lot of times it was a percentage rent, 80% of common average market rent. I’m guessing that the city would be undertaking whatever, they would be owners of the units. And so thus could dictate whether it would be that type of rental agreement or rent gear to income.

Is that something that has yet to come, that determination, because this is all new roads that we’re traveling right now? At a very high level, I would agree with that. Comment through you, Mr. Chair.

I don’t know the exact number, and I don’t believe it was stipulated in the bonus zone. So I would let our folks who would take ownership of that probably deal with that rate accordingly. Okay, thank you. The clerk has drawn up a drafting motion that we can perhaps share for someone want to move it.

As this is passing on feedback to our playing department. Clerk, if you could read that out, please. That on the recommendation of the acting director planning and development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of LJM developments relating to the property located at 400 Southdale Road East. Part A, the approval authority be advised that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for site plan approval to facilitate the construction of the proposed residential development.

And part B, the approval authority be advised that the municipal council supports the planning application. Can I, I’m looking for a mover of that motion? Councillor Lewis, second by Councillor Hopkins. Any further questions, comments?

Before I put that vote, seeing none, I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. There are no items for direction.

We do have deferred matters from our consent items. Items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5. So I will put 2.1 on the floor regarding 600 Sunnydale Road West. Now I’ll look to committee for motions, comments, questions, et cetera.

Councillor Lewis. Councillor Frank, hold it. I don’t know if she had questions or amendments or what she might want to put forward. I’m happy to move the staff recommendation and then see where she wants to take the discussion from there.

We have a mover, Councillor Lewis. We have a seconder, Councillor Hillyer. I see Councillor Raman has joined us on Zoom as well. Any, I’ll go to committee first for any questions or comments regarding the motion, Councillor Frank.

I think I have a bunch of technical questions. So can I do, yeah, go for it. Okay, one of my questions is my understanding of the let-in plan and the city design policies is we are trying to move towards grid formations for new subdivisions and I’m just trying to understand this is like kind of a grid, but not really. And I’m wondering if that was given some consideration by staff and the developer and how come it’s not more gritty, I guess.

What’s staff? Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s Bruce Page, Manager for Subdivision.

This application came in in 2018 and we were dealing with the applicant there. There was some natural heritage issues, topography issues and the street alignment is something that was derived at between the applicant or transportation department and the planning department. There was an attempt to try to make a grid formation and this was sort of the best that we could yield. Councillor.

Thank you. And next question, I’m just wondering again in the report, it mentioned that there’s not gonna be any land set aside for school block and I was wondering how that deliberation was made and if that could just be explained a bit. I’ve got a staff for you, Mr. Chair.

The application, as I mentioned, came in in 2018. In April 2018, we did our standard circulation, which included the school boards, all four school boards. They were notified. They did not provide any requests for lands in this area.

Looking at this plot of land, probably isn’t an ideal location for school. It is somewhat isolated. It’s surrounded by Sunnydale Road to the north and the Medway, both to the, or basically on the all three sides of East, the West and the South. So it would pretty much require that students be bust and wouldn’t remove the opportunity for students walking to school.

But again, the request was put out to all the school boards, all four of them, and none of them had made a application for us to reserve some of the blocks. Councilor. Thank you. Another question I had was, why are we accepting less Parkland than we should according to our policies?

So I just see outlined that it is suggested that in the future, the point to zero six hectares of Parkland that’s missing from this area to meet the minimum might be developed in other areas. But I guess what’s the certainty? Like what if those areas don’t get developed and we don’t get cash in lieu and we don’t get the right amount of Parkland? I’m wondering what certainty we have.

Is there like a contract or it can guarantee? We’ll get that point to zero six sectors. Mr. Page.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Parkland dedication there, as part of this application, we acquired a significant portion of the Medway forest, the lands again to the East, South and West. So we acquired those as part of Parkland dedication.

There was also a portion of that was a multi-use pathway that comes down from the bottom of Street A. I sorry, I forget the name of the street, but Street A that comes in straight from Sunnydale. There’s a pathway connection that leads from there into the Medway heritage valley. The balance of the Parkland is going to be applied to lands north of the site.

That’s part of the Sunnydale holdings. And that will be used to acquire additional Parkland up there. If those lands aren’t acquired, then Cash and Loo would be required and the applicant would be paid. It’s included within the subdivision agreement, so it is tracked that way.

Parkland dedication, as it was required back in 2018, still required today under the current bill. And we would be taking that. Typically, Cash and Loo is taken at the time of building permit. So when the properties come in to get their building permit, there’s a fee that’s applied to that.

And that was the former CP9, which I believe has been changed now to CP25 Councilor. Thank you, I’m almost done. Through the chair, another thing I noticed in this application is that it says we’re only going to do sidewalks on one side and not both. And again, I thought in the London plan, we’re supposed to be doing on both sides and any new subdivision.

And I know at Civic Works, there was a report about having to do neighborhood connectivity plans for retrofitting areas where there aren’t any sidewalks. And I just noticed it was referenced in there as well that any new subdivision is going to be having two sidewalks. So I just was wondering why we don’t have that in this area. Mr.

Page. So Mr. Chair, the sidewalk issue was discussed with the applicant. It was approved as part of the 2018 plan of subdivision.

The applicant has come forward and they’re looking at, this is for subdivision agreement and the subdivision agreement would there be registering it? So the applicant was looking at registering these lands. There’ll be a subsequent application that’ll be coming forward that will probably extend the draft approval. And at that time, we would be looking to have the discussion about two-sided sidewalks.

But at this point in time, the application that’s before the committee is for special provisions to be included within the subdivision agreement. So it would be those discussions that were held prior to the two-sided sidewalk. Again, the committee will probably receive a report either next committee meeting or the following one, which will be asking for an extension of draft approval. In that extension, we’ll discuss the two-sided sidewalks.

Councilor. Thank you. Those are all my questions. And I do look forward to that because I do think I’d hate to have to put in one sidewalk in this.

And then in five years, go back and try and put another one in for this neighborhood connectivity plan. So I look forward to the opportunity to comment and having sidewalks on both sides. Thank you. Any other questions from community members before I go to Councilor.

Councilor Oppen, sorry, I apologize. You did have, I did have you on the list. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I just want to thank Councilor Frank for her questions. I’ve been able to take off a few of my questions on this consent item. I would like just to make a comment around the school. So, and I think it’s really important.

I hope the Board of Education is following our recommendations that we approve here. And when I see an agreement that there is a lack of school in the area, it is concerning. It seems like our social infrastructure really lags behind, as well as our infrastructure itself, when we approve these developments, how they catch up is something that I have a concern. My question for you too, our staff, and I had pulled 2.2 as well.

And the question I had was both on 2.1 and 2.2 is around the financial securities. And I think it’s really important with the changes that we’ve had in Bill 23, as we approve these consent items, that we really have an understanding the financial implications, especially around the DCs, and how they’re going to work. And I understand DCs really start when we have, when it goes through the building division stage. And we’re not there right now, but we will be there.

It has to go there to get the permit. But I have a question through to staff. I understand staff will be here to answer the question around how, and if, and will there be money for this throughout DCs? And if we do not have money, where will this money come from?

As we are approving these subdivisions and the need for building, and that has to continue. But I would like to know where we are on, who’s paying for this. I’ll go to staff a lot. After you, Mr.

Chair, it’s Mr. Yeoman from capital assets and projects happy to provide a response to that and welcome the question. So we’re anticipating that the two phases of this subdivision will yield out approximately, actually over $3 million in DC revenues that go to pay for all the infrastructure costs that have been invested in the area over a number of years to the councilor’s question related to bill 23. What I can confirm for the committee is that bill 23 is in force on effect.

The provisions for the DC fees in does not come into play until a new background study and bylaws completed and approved by council. We’re anticipating that will be at least 2025, if not longer than that as well. So the DCs, given that there’s a lot of demand for housing in this area, we anticipate the DCs will be paid before that time period. So we’re not anticipating the need to subsidize at this point.

Bill 23, however, does have provisions that are in force and effect related to units that are going to be attainable. And we are still waiting to receive direction from the province about what that does mean. However, I anticipate given the lot size and the intended market for these single family units that they probably won’t be hitting the provisions of the attainable housing, that will require subsidization in the future. We’re gonna look forward to providing council with a fulsome report on the bill 23 impacts in the coming months.

Councilor? Yeah, I appreciate those comments. I think it is a concern every time we approve these or bring forward these consent items that we really understand the implications behind them. Appreciate staff’s comments and look forward to receiving further reports on the consequences, I guess, or exactly where we’re going when we approve these attainable or not and how it all fits through the process.

So really appreciate the comments, thank you. Thank you. I’ll go to Councilor Raman now. Thank you and through you, Chair.

Thank you for having me at committee. As you may know, this is in ward seven and happy to speak to a couple of the concerns that were raised around the school zoning and the lack of schools included in the application. I did meet with both with two of the four school boards, Thames Valley and with a London Catholic district school board trustees to find out a bit more about this particular application and the impacts on schools. I do believe London Catholic, especially addressed it in the report as well, that this would be in a holding zone as their schools are full and they’re awaiting a new build in the area.

Thames Valley is actually in a public input process related to this particular development Sunnydale court that is closing at the end of this month, January 31st and they will make a decision whether or not students that would be living in this area would be moved to Jack Chambers Public School. So that is currently in process and they are seeking public input on that matter. So based on that, the ability for both Thames Valley to have a solution that could be provided through a holding zone in London Catholic district school board through a holding zone. I do feel like it is meeting the needs and of course, something we all have eyes on around over capacity schools in the area.

And for that reason, supportive of the application. Thank you to Councillor Frank to rate for raising the issue around sidewalks. I too looked at it and had some concerns. I know that neighborhood has expressed concerns around those pathways that were park in lieu.

Being close to public and when those would be open and I expect that they’re closed due to the fact that there’s ongoing construction in the site. And that is all. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? We have a motion that’s been seconded, that’s on the floor. If the committee will permit me, I’ll just add a comment with sort of a curry and what we saw last spring, heightened awareness of the challenges of school schools and their distribution being part of the process when we are making plans for subdivisions, et cetera. And the challenges that are really faced and can kind of put council in a box, quite frankly, that we felt last spring when those parameters aren’t adequately addressed.

So I think the councilors for raising that and for checking with the school boards because that is our jurisdiction. It’s a school board prerogative to do their school distribution planning. However, it does cross into our area when it impacts development of land. And we just recently had that example.

So I think it’s on our radar for sure. And that’s why there might be some heightened awareness when we see this staff report come to us that touches on that area. So I want to thank staff for those questions. Seeing no other comments or questions, we have 2.1 that’s been, the motion has been made and seconded, and I will put that forward to the floor.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And we now have 2.2, which is on the same property. So I will go to committee and that, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I had pulled that to go along with 2.1, 2.2, and it’s just questions that have been answered and thank the committee for the conversation. Are you moving that, Councillor?

Staff referral or a recommendation? Yes. Okay, thank you, a seconder. Councillor Lewis, any comments or questions?

Seeing none, I will put the vote to the floor. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and we have a technical issue as staff have requested a referral of 2.5. So I will put the committee to motion for that referral.

Councillor Hopkins, I have a seconder. Councillor Hillier, any comments or questions? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, staff, for your time today. And committee members and for Councillors joining us that are not on the committee. As always, we appreciate your questions and concerns and to the delegate, Councillor to Mr. 11, we appreciate his time.

I’ll look for a motion for a German, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Lewis, hand vote. That carries. Thank you, folks.