January 30, 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 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-17503)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road (39T-17503)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by W-3 Lambeth Farms Inc., relating to the lands located at 3700 Colonel Talbot Road and 3645 Bostwick Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision subject to the revised conditions contained in Appendix “A” appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023. (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

2.2   1656 Hyde Park Road - Heritage Easement Agreement

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 1656 Hyde Park Road - Heritage Easement Agreement - Full

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Economic Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the property located at 1656 Hyde Park Road:

a) the draft Heritage Easement Agreement appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “B” between The Corporation of the City of London and the property owner of 1656 Hyde Park Road, relating to the heritage designated property known as the “Routledge Farmhouse”, BE APPROVED substantially in the form appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 and as approved by the City Solicitor; and,

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 2023 to approve the Heritage Easement Agreement and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement pursuant to Section 37(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

2.3   600 Sunningdale Road West - Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval (39T-18501)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 600 Sunningdale Road West - Draft Approval Extension (39T-18501)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Sunningdale Golf and Country Club, relating to the property located at 600 Sunningdale Road West, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing a three (3) year extension to Draft Plan Approval for the residential plan of subdivision (39T-18501), subject to the conditions contained in Appendix “A” appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023.  (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

2.4   Streamline Development Approval Fund: Streamlining Development Approvals (2022) - Final Report

2023-01-30 Staff Report - Streamlining Development Approvals - Full

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated January 30, 2023, entitled “Streamline Development Approval Fund: Streamlining Development Approvals (2022) - Final Report” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-F11A)

Motion Passed

2.5   2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-01-11 CACP Report 2

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on January 11, 2023:

a) the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED of the following with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated December 14, 2022, from N. Pasato, Senior Planner, related to the property located at 200 Albert Street and the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 200 Albert Street, dated August 9, 2022, from Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc.:

i) the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) has reviewed the above-noted Notice of Planning Application and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment;

ii) the CACP supports this kind of mid-rise development in this area as it is sensitive to the heritage properties surrounding it and to the streetscape itself;

b) the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED of the following with respect to the Revised Notice of Planning Application, dated December 14, 2022, from A. Riley, Senior Planner, related to a Zoning By-law Amendment for the properties located at 300-320 King Street and the Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 320 King Street, dated October 6, 2022, from Zelinka Priamo Ltd.:

i) the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) has reviewed the above-noted Revised Notice of Planning Application and Heritage Impact Assessment;

ii) the CACP is generally supportive of this application but would like to see additional analysis and/or renderings as part of a heritage alteration permit application that addresses conservation of the Dundas Street view of the Armouries building which has been identified as a significant heritage attribute in the Downtown Heritage Conservation District

c)  clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.4,  3.5, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-01-19 ECAC Report 2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on January 19, 2023:

a) clause 2.1 of the 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee relating to the 2023 Budget update BE DELETED; it being noted that clause 2.1 reads as follows:

“the Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to consider a targeted consultation with all Community Advisory Committees with respect to the Strategic Plan before the Strategic Plan is adopted by the Municipal Council; it being noted that the presentation appended to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Agenda by K. Murray, Director, Financial Planning and Business Support, with respect to the 2023 Budget update, was received”;

b) the following actions be taken with respect to the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements:

i)    the Working Group comments relating to the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

ii)    subject to the results of a pending conversation with the Civic Administration about potential impacts of the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue improvements on species at risk, the Chair of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee BE GIVEN delegation status at the Civic Works Committee meeting when the Western Road and Sarnia Road - Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements are presented; and,

c)  clauses 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1555 Glenora Drive (Z-9543)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 1555 Glenora Drive (Z-9543)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Glenora Management Ltd., relating to the property located at 1555 Glenora Drive, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 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 Office (OF3) Zone TO an Office (OF5) Zone;

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

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

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

-  the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Neighbourhoods Place Type; and,

-  the recommended amendment would facilitate the continued use reuse of the existing building with a use that is appropriate for the context of the site. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   761 Fanshawe Park Road West (Z-9554)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 761 Fanshawe Park Road West (Z-9554)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 1413045 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 761 Fanshawe Park Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 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 Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC5(3)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA3(_));

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 in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Shopping Area Place Type; and,

  • the recommended amendment provides additional uses that are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area and provides an increased opportunity to better utilize the existing building. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   489 Upper Queen Street (Z-9540)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 489 Upper Queen Street (Z-9540)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2863382 Ontario Inc. c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc., relating to the property located at 489 Upper Queen Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

-  a communication dated January 20, 2023, from J. and B. Wood;

-  the Project Fact sheet;

-  the staff presentation; and,

-  a revised staff report;

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;

-  T. Donaldson;

-  R. Smeets;

-  G. Gordon;

-  C. Aziz;

-  H. Kelly;

-  M. Lennox;

-  E. Carroll;

-  R. Bishop;

-  J. Sleziuk;

-  N. Hind;

-  C. Anderson;

-  J. Cummings;

-  H. Kelly;

-  C. Jones;

-  L. Merner;

-  Carly;

-  T. Carroll;

-  M.B. Bezzina;

-  A. Marlow;

-  A. Mochrie;

-  M. Huk; and,

-  K. Keating;

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

-  the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

-  the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

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

-  the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant, underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development.  (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

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)

3.5   608 Commissioners Road West (Z-9516)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 608 Commissioners Road West - (Z-9516)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Zelinka Priamo on behalf of Copia Developments, relating to the property located at 608 Commissioners Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 14, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the following urban design and site plan matters were raised during the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i) verify the trees along the south property line position and the relation of their trunks to the property lines shared with 659 and 615 Westmount Crescent for possible consent by the neighbouring property owner to remove boundary tree(s) or cause injury to a boundary tree(s);

ii) provide a building step back above the 5th storey along Commissioners Road West as per the drawings dated October ‎11, ‎2022;

iii) provide a building step back above the 4th storey along Westmount Crescent to provide appropriate height transition from abutting low-density residential as per the drawings dated October ‎11, ‎2022;

iv) provide detailed site plan and landscape plans to detail any proposed programming in the amenity space to demonstrate how it functions and relates to the building interface at the rear;

v) provide interior floor plans to demonstrate how the interior spaces will relate to the exterior functions; and,

vi) explore ways to re-locate or screen the garbage moloks near the main entrance,

b) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning generally implements the site concept submitted with the application. As part of the application review process a revised site plan concept was submitted with minor revisions including a new height of 22.0 metres; however, which is still within the 6 storeys as originally proposed;

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

  • H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

-  J. Burrell;

-  D. Mcleod;

-  B. Poetschke;

-  H. Orlowski;

-  A. Burrell;

-  R. Campbell;

-  R. de Papp;

-  P. Gallant; and,

-  A. Barham;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  • the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, City Design and City Building, Neighbourhood Place Type and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property within the Built-Area Boundary through an appropriate form of infill development; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates a type of residential development that will help to address the growing need for affordable housing in London.  The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   723 Lorne Avenue (39T-21504)

2023-01-30 Staff Report - 723 Lorne Avenue (39T-21504)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Habitat for Humanity – Heartland Ontario, relating to the property located at 723 Lorne Avenue:

a) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision of Habitat for Humanity – Heartland Ontario relating to a property located at 723 Lorne Avenue; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by Habitat for Humanity – Heartland Ontario, (File No. 39T-21504), prepared by Callon Dietz Inc. (File No. 18-22301 C, Plan No. Z-2741), certified by J. Paul Crocker O.L.S., dated April 13, 2022, which shows a total of twelve (12) single detached lots (Lots 1 to 12), one (1) road allowance block serviced by the extension of Queen’s Place, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix “A” appended to the staff report dated January 30, 2023;

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

  • G. De Vlugt, General Manager, Construction, Habitat for Humanity;

-  K. Kane, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

-  F. Fellice;

-  S. Merritt; and,

-  K. Paniccia.    (2023-D12)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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 7:49 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 (3 hours, 59 minutes)

It’s four o’clock and we’ll call the third meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Folks, welcome you in the gallery. There’s quite a few of you today. I just want to let you know the way the acoustics are in here, we can hear what you’re saying.

You can’t, can you hear me now? Let me pull this a little closer. What that, is that good? Okay, louder, can you raise my?

Okay, how’s that? Can everyone hear me now? Okay, great. Well, I can hear my accent, so it sounds pretty loud down here.

Okay, keep it loud and strong. And in return, I ask that you don’t, until it’s your turn to speak. Thank you very much. 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 Anishnabic, Haudenosaunee, Nini, Lenna Peiwock, and Adawandram. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today.

As representatives of the people in the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a specific request to this meeting, please contact pec@london.ca or 519-661-2489. Extension 2-4-2-5.

At this time, I will ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move to the consent items. Do council or does committee wish to pull any consent items? Okay.

Thank you. So if I could have a mover and a seconder for Councilor Hopkins, the seconder. Councilor Lewis, before I go to questions from the committee, I know the staff have a verbal presentation on 2.4, the streamline of development approval fund. So I’ll go to Mr.

Mathers. Thank you very much through the chair. This report today, we’re gonna be just highlighting some of the work we’re doing on our streamlining efforts. And it has been top of mind, I know for the community and for ourselves the importance of housing.

There’s gonna be some future reports on that as well. As far as our building area currently, we have been having challenged, we’ve highlighted this in the past about just ensuring that we have the appropriate staffing levels, knowing that building officials across Ontario are very highly valued for the important work they do. And wanted to highlight that our group has been doing very strong work. We’re getting very close to having our record year for the amount of construction in the city.

It really means that we’re getting very, very close to actually doing more work with probably less people than we’ve ever had. So I just wanna really thank both our planning staff, but it also our building staff for the incredible work they’ve been doing. So with that, we have Mr. Davenport here is gonna provide just a little bit on the streamlining efforts we’ve been moving forward with and to try to make our processes that much more streamlined and faster.

Go ahead, Mr. Davenport. Thank you and through the chair. So over the course of 2022, the planning and development group has been working with our consultants at our EZ Sigma group.

And we’ve been working towards creating some streamlining development stuff under the stream, not in the approval fund. The entire process followed the DMAIC model for continuous improvement, which is to find, measure, analyze, improve, and control. And we are currently working through the improvement phase with control to follow thereafter. The process looked at our eight planning active applications that we process through planning and development.

And the big focus on untangling 30 years of reorganizational structure between the planning and engineering groups. To date, we’ve mapped the entire process from end to end for most of our processes. And we’re looking at establishing now a centralized location for all of our files and folders, which is really essential to getting everybody on the right path to a streamlined work within the department. Thank you.

I’ll go to committee for any questions. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I hear myself echoing here. So hopefully, I’m not too loud. But I do appreciate staff making the comments, Mr. Davenport.

I understand the, this is on 2.4, which is the Streamline Development Approval Fund. I really appreciate staff’s update on this one. I understand this is our final report as well, coming to committee. And given that the government gave us quite a bit of money there, 1.75 million, which is quite a bit.

Lots of community engagement. I know LDI is here, who has London Development Institute was part of that engagement, along with a number of other stakeholders. 600 comments coming into the city. Lots of work going on is what I’m reading in this report.

Lots of changes, opportunities to streamline. Really pleased that we’re going that way. But I do have a question around the metrics on these suggestions, changes that we are going to be making to streamline everything. How are we going to know if it’s working or not?

Are there any metrics or information coming back to us saying, yeah, this is really working. And because I think we all want the same thing, we want to get the process going, get applications moved forward. And I know, as a committee member, we’d like to know that what’s working and what’s not. Thank you.

Good staff. Through the chair, a lot of really great work has been done. And I just wanted to also thank, because we’ve had a lot of industry partners and the public as well. And our staff working really hard on this.

And really to know what we’re doing well and what we can improve, you really have to talk to other people. Other people can’t just focus yourself on yourself with that. So as far as the metrics, of course, council is going through the strategic planning process. And one of the key pieces of that is metrics.

Because if you don’t have follow up, if you don’t have that ability to look, make sure you’re doing and following the right aspects of your work, you’re not going to be able to make sure that you’re improving over time. So through that effort, we’re actually working very hard on that right now, because that’s a significant piece. And we’ve heard that from council. So council is going to have that opportunity to see those metrics coming forward in the next few weeks.

Councilor. Yeah, great to hear. And thanks again, stakeholders, staff, for all the work that’s gone into this. Thank you.

Councilor Frick. Thank you. And through you, Chair, to staff, I’m just interested in hearing a little bit more about the digital file management system. I’m wondering if you guys are thinking about doing an in-house version, or going out, or if you’ve gotten that far in the thought process.

Yes, so currently we’re exploring stuff internal. We are working with our partners in IT to determine what that best method is going to be, whether it’s through our shared drive currently, or through SharePoint, or one of the other systems that are available to us. But as we’re working through that, we’re going to start consolidating into that single source. Councilor.

Thank you. Any other questions, committee, and visitors to the committee? Councilor Prepper. Even though I’m not on the committee, I would like to thank you, because the streamlining and also the development of the tracking up are tremendously important for us, into sort of streamlining.

I know Mr. Madras, sorry, sort of Chair, you mentioned that in the next few weeks, do you have certain kind of deadlines or approximate times when we can see certain big steps going forward to the streamlining? Thank you. Mr.

Madras. Through the Chair, through the strategic planning process, one of the important aspects of that is bringing back to Council through one of the SPPC meetings, the metrics. I’d have to take a look at the calendar to see when they’ll be coming to Council, but they’re actually, from our perspective, actually do this week. So we’re working on them right now, and then you’ll see them through an SPPC report moving forward.

Councilor. SPPC meeting, the next one, coming up. Scott. Sorry, Mr.

Madras. Through the Chair, I’ll follow up the calendar, and I’ll confirm it with you, actually. So I think it’s the next one. I think it’s the February 7th meeting, but I’ll get back to you on that.

Council approval? Thank you very much. Any other questions from the committee on the consent items? If, oh, Councilor Frank?

Through the Chair, I did have some questions about the Sunnydale 1, 4.3, 2.3, is that now? No, please go ahead. Yeah, great. So I noticed there was a request for three-year extension, and I was just wondering, two questions are kind of random, but one, how are street names picked?

And I just want to know in general, I’m very curious. So through the Chair, I don’t know if staff have a process? Staff. Through you, Chair, there is a list of names that have been approved by our committee, and the developers provided those lists, and they would select from that.

If there’s names that they choose that are outside the list, they submit them to us, and we circulate them through committee. Councillor? Thank you very much. I just always wondered, and I think that’s a cool process.

The other question I was wondering about for that is, are there sidewalks on both sides of this subdivision plan? Staff. Through you, Chair, for the majority of the subdivision, there is sidewalks on both sides. There are one portion that doesn’t have sidewalks, and it the approval predated when we implemented that policy.

Councillor? Thank you very much. And one last question. I noticed in this report, again, kind of near the beginning, there was a mention of the Klein emergency declaration in 2019, and it did have a bit of a blur, but I’m just wondering how this subdivision of single family homes on the edge of the city helps us achieve our climate targets.

It goes, they’re just a bit confused about why there was the statement, and I was wondering how staff were tying in the climate emergency to this subdivision. Go to staff. Through you, Chair. The development itself was an infill development portion was a golf course previously.

It’s been converted over to residential lands. And as part of that development coming through a large portion or a significant portion was added to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest, which allowed us to expand that and allow for that area to be buffered. We added additional park land with some trails connecting to it as well. Councillor?

Thank you, that’s it. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members on their consent items? The committee will allow us to have a question on 2.4 for staff.

The approval fund for streamlining details, how we’re going to improve our process for zoning applications. How would this apply to building permits? Because as we know, there’s frustration with delays in getting building permits to turn around. And a lot of times that affects not just big developers, but individual homeowners or small businesses are trying to get things built.

Through the chair, we’ve heard very closely with the building division on that was within our area as well. So for the most part, a lot of the work from an efficiency perspective was focused on the planning process, because it is so complex. There’s separate efforts on going in the building division, and it’s going to be actually moving through our strategic plan as showing as a priority. So there will be additional efforts in the building, but the building area.

But this report speaks very specifically to the just the planning area. And just to follow up on that, we’ll some of the techniques and metrics that are being developed now be used for building or just for seeing that potential anyway. Through the chair, absolutely, the metrics are going to be very much focused both on the planning process, but then also on the building. And I have confirmed just for Council approval, it’s February 28 that the draft metrics are coming forward to SBBC.

Thank you. Before I call the vote, one last chance for any questions. Our comments on our consent items. Seeing none, I will call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. Moving on now to our scheduled items, 3.1. Amendment here is that the delegation by Mr.

Levin has been withdrawn. So I’m looking now for a motion to receive the report. Seconder, Councillor Hopkins. I have a seconder, Councillor Frank.

Any discussions or comments? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m coming back to this issue. It was raised at the last PEC meeting. It was raised at Civic Works as well. And that’s with the Part A of the Ecological Community Advisory Reports request that Council be requested to consider a targeted consultation with community advisory committees, with all community advisory committees.

I would suggest that that particular direction needs to be removed. First of all, we have addressed this at SPPC through the Strategic Plan Development. But it comes back to what I stated at the last PEC. One advisory committee cannot request or direct us to take action on behalf of all advisory committees.

They can only speak for themselves. And we actually cannot change the governance process for advisory committees here at PEC that belongs properly at SPPC. So while I’m happy to support parts B and C, if Part A is left in the motion to receive, then I will not be able to support this. It’s out of order, in my opinion, and should not be part of the direction on this.

So are you making an amendment, Councillor? I am making an amendment to delete Clause A from the directions arising from the report. I’ll look to the committee for a seconder for that amendment. Councillor Hopkins?

Yeah, my apologies, but I’m not exactly sure what item the deputy mayor is referring to. If I can just get the exact item on the report. So we’re looking at the second meeting of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee. Got one?

So through you, Mr. Chair, if I can help the Councillor with this, it’s actually the motion that’s predrafted in E-Scribe for receipt of this, and it’s part A of that motion under our votes in E-Scribe. Councillor Hopkins? We don’t have a seconder yet.

I’m just waiting to see if Councillor Hopkins wishes to. Again, the removal of A? Councillor? Yes, just Part A.

Part B and C are fine. It’s Part A that is the problematic clause. Councillor Hopkins, are you interested in seconding the motion? Okay, but seeing none, I will second the motion for that amendment, and then I’ll look for questions or comments, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, and through the Chair, I think this might be for Clark’s, because I have a foggy memory last week with a lot. Did we direct at SPPC to have consultations with the Community Advisory Committees for both the Budget and Strap Plan? I feel like in my head, it was one of them, and I can’t remember if it was both, and it’s been a long week, so. I’ll go to the Clerk.

Through the Chair, the Budget and the Strategic Plan are going to vote or to all of the Community Advisory Committees. Councillor, any other questions or comments? Thank you, no, that’s great. Okay, any comments or questions before I call the vote?

We have called the motion to receive as amended. So questions, I’ll call the vote. So Mr. Chair, what we have up right now before us is not as amended, and Clause A is still there.

Clerk, please comment. So through the Chair, in the opening clause, it says it being noted that Clause A be removed as it is currently being undertaken. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and we will move on to 3.2, the Medal of Early Road Environmental Assessment.

That be noted that the Ecological Community Advisory Committee received an email from K Graham, the Environmental Services Engineer, and all the general discussion with respect to the Medal of Early Road Environmental Assessment. So I’ll look for a motion to receive that. Councillor Hopkins, second. Councillor Lewis, any comments or discussion?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. My apologies, I was on the impression that we had to vote to receive it, we do not. Okay, we are now on 3.2, public participation meeting for 155.5, glory of our drive. Look for a mover to open the VPM.

Councillor Frank, seconder, Councillor Lewis. I’ll have a vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

I’ll open the floor now for any questions for staff. We have the report in front of us, any technical questions right now from the committee. Seeing none, I’ll move to the applicant. I’ll see applicant if they are present.

To, you’re welcome to address the committee. Please give us your name. Do not see the applicant here, so I’ll move on to the public. If there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this, now is your opportunity.

I see no one in the gallery. I’ll ask the clerk if there are any online or in the room. If there is anyone in committee room five that would like to speak to 1555, Glenora, please come to the microphone. I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Councillor Hillier. I will, yes, sorry, it just could hold on to me.

Thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I look to the committee now for comments, questions, motions, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, I’d be pleased to move the motion to allow for a broader use of opportunities at this location. I understand it’s a pharmacy. There’s no additional development. This is me there, convenient for residents in the urban area.

So happy to move the motion. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Lewis. The motion is made and has been seconded.

Any comments or questions from committee? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair and through you.

This is more of a general question to staff on these two particular zones. I fully support this application. A pharmacy connected to a medical dental office makes a lot of sense. That said, given the recent changes from the provincial government around pharmacists being able to write prescriptions themselves not having to have a doctor do it, have staff given any consideration yet to whether pharmacies are perhaps mis-categorized and should now be considered to be moved into the medical dental area, given that pharmacists now have limited button on the less powers to start writing prescriptions themselves for their patients in some areas.

So I’m just wondering if any review or consideration of a review of that has been given yet, go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, no, we have not. As through our land use, we focus on the use, not the user and to that level of detail.

But certainly as part of our rethink zoning process, we would be integrating in terms of these neighborhoods and complete communities to ensure the supports and facilities are accessible. Councillor? Thank you, happy to hear that. Just when I was reviewing this application, seeing that the OF5 would also allow things like restaurants and convenience stores and to me, a pharmacy’s a significantly different business model than although granted, in some pharmacies these days, it may look like a convenience store.

It’s definitely a different model than say a restaurant. So, but if it’s gonna be something reviewed through the rethink zoning process, that’s great to hear. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote on the committee? Then I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we move on to 3.3 public participation meeting regarding 761 Fanshawe Park Road West. I will call on the committee for a mover to open the PPM, seconder, our mover by Councillor Hopkins, second by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, we have staff’s report in front of us. Just look to committee now for any technical questions for staff. Seeing none, then I’ll move on to the applicant. The applicant is here and would like to address committee.

They can come on and give us your name, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Scott Allen, the MHVC planning. We are acting on behalf of the applicant.

This time, Mr. Chair, we’d like to express our support for the finance recommendations of the planning staff report. We concur that this proposed zoning would appropriately broaden the range of use permitted on the site, in particular, within the existing building at 761 Fanshawe Park Road West. And we also agree that the application would align with the existing planning policy framework and obviously the rezoning requirement.

So I’d like to thank staff for their assistance with this application, and would gladly, or I would gladly answer any questions that committee members may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Any questions for the applicant right now? Before I move to the public, seeing none, and I will go open the floor up to anyone from the public who would like to address the committee. Please come forward and state your name, please. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online or in the anti-room.

Through the chair, there’s no one online. If anyone in committee room five would like to speak to 761 Fanshawe Park Road West, can you please approach the podium? Thank you. I see no one wishing to speak in the gallery.

So I look to committee for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to committee now for comments, questions, or motions.

Councillor Frank. I’ll make the motion to support the staff’s recommendation. We have a seconder. Councillor Hopkins, questions or comments before I call the vote, seeing none, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. And then I’ll move to 3.4, which is 49 Upper Queen Street. I’ll look to committee to motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Frank, seconder. Councillor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

And this time I’ll go to staff for verbal presentation. Through the chair, this is Anusha speaking, the planner on file for this application. The property is located at 489 Upper Queen Street, approximately 90 meters south of commissioners Road East and Upper Queen Street intersection. The property is approximately 0.28 hectares in size and is currently vacant.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from an R19 zone to an R57 special provision zone to construct 10 two-story cluster townhouse units with 22 resident parking stalls and four visitor parking spots. Driveway and pedestrian access is proposed to be provided to the south of the site. Individual and community amenity space is also proposed to be incorporated into the site design. So staff are of the opinion that the proposed zone would permit a development that represents an appropriate residential intensification for the site and would contribute to providing an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the projected requirements for current and future residents.

The proposed two-story development appropriately maximizes the use of what otherwise be a large underutilized parcel of land within an existing neighborhood and represents a permitted land use at an appropriate scale and intensity that is considered compatible with the surrounding properties consisting of one to two-story single detached dwellings. The development also represents an appropriate transition and intensity from the high order uses that are permitted to the north along Commissioners Road East and the lower density uses that exist to the south along Upper Queen Street. Staff are also implementing a number of special provisions within the requested by a lot to ensure the development is constructed in a specific way that is complimentary and not intrusive to properties in the surrounding area. For this reason, special regulations to restrict development to two stories and 36 units per hectare has been proposed.

Furthermore, in order to ensure the development remains appropriately buffered from surrounding properties, a minimum front yard depth regulation has been proposed to ensure the street facing townhomes remain in line with other developments along the street. A minimum rear yard depth has also been included to provide adequate landscape buffer between the proposed development and the properties along Barents Court to minimize overlook and shadowing impacts. Lastly, minimum interior side yard setbacks have also been proposed to ensure there is adequate room for landscape buffering in addition to the proposed driveway and pedestrian pathway. These regulations assist in ensuring the adequate, sorry, these regulations assist in ensuring that there is adequate privacy setback between the development and the putting properties to the north and to the south.

So staff are recommending a number of special regulations that would ensure the development remains at a size, density, typology and configuration that is compatible with the surrounding build form and residential intensification policies of the official plan. So for these reasons, we are recommending approval for the requested amendment. Thank you, Ms. saying any technical questions from the committee for staff.

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you through you to staff. I do have a couple of questions. I just want to confirm that given that it’s only 10 units, it doesn’t go through a site plan process.

Just want to make sure I understand that. And I’ll start with that question. Through the chair, that’s correct. It wouldn’t go through a site plan.

Thank you for confirming that. So how it’s going to more or less look or be like is what we’re going to be sort of discussing now just for the sake of the public in terms of understanding how it’s going to look. I’d like to ask a question around the buffering part of it. And in the recommendation, it says that it may have windows and it may not, I guess are we there yet?

Trying to understand about that aspect as it relates to the privacy portion of this development. Good stuff. Through the chair, the by-law proposed does leave a adequate setback if there was windows to that side yard. So we are asking for 1.8 meters when the end wall of the unit contains no windows and six meters when the wall unit contains windows.

So given that, we do feel that there is adequate setback if there was windows or if there wasn’t for those units. Thank you. It’s good. I just wanted to make sure I understood that.

You are suggesting no windows with 1.8 meters but there would be adequate space if there was windows for the buffering. I’ve got a question for you, Mr. Chair, as well about the parking spaces where 22, that just seems to be above what? So that’s two per unit.

Seems like a lot of parking there but I just want to make sure I understand the parking. Is there a question there? Is it confirmed for sure that we are going to have 22 parking spots? I’ll go to stuff.

I think it’s for accessible parking spots. So that’s 26 in total. I just want to confirm that. Go to staff for clarification number of parking spots.

Through the chair, that is correct. There are 22 parking spots. So it is two per unit and then four visitor stalls also available on site. Councillor.

So that would allow for one garage. Is there a garage there? I’m just trying to understand the spacing around the development. So I’ll go to staff for a question.

Are there a garage per unit? Through the chair, as the applicants proposal currently is. Yes, there are garages per unit. Councillor.

Thank you. Any other technical questions? Seeing none, I will go to the applicant. The applicant could please state your name and you have five minutes.

Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair Lehman, members of committee. My name’s Mike Davis. I’m a partner with Civic Planning and Design here in London.

Excuse me here today. Representing our client mentioned Holmes is the owner and developer of this project at 489 Upper Queen Street. First, I’ll say that we’re fully in agreement with the staff report and the zoning bylaw amendment that’s being recommended for approval by your planning staff. Want to acknowledge the work of your planning staff in terms of their thoughtful evaluation of the proposal and also navigating this application forward.

We understand fully that change in neighborhoods is not easy. Starting back in May, we invested a significant amount of time in terms of talking to residents. We carried out a multi-phased public engagement strategy. That was an evolving conversation that ultimately had influence on the design that we ended up with.

Through that process, we know that we had 288 unique views of our project website, 81 households on our circulation radius, so we know we had a very high reach. A number of people in the community were able to see the information that was shared. The key themes that emerged from our conversations are summarized on the project fact sheet that you have on your agenda. Even though we weren’t able to reach what I would call a consensus with neighbors, we did work hard to provide quality information to ask for thoughts and opinions, and at the end of the day, try to be as transparent as possible in terms of how we reached our decisions.

In terms of the project itself, we’ve worked closely with our client, the direction of the London Plan, and with what we heard from residents to achieve what we think is a gentle intensification of the site that fits well. Just some of the points we want to emphasize from a fit perspective, firstly, the building height. We’ve limited the building height to two stories as opposed to the three stories which would be permitted by the London Plan for this site. These new townhouses, they’ll be street oriented, so we’ll have front doors and stoops facing upper queen with garages and parking tucked in behind so we can maintain a high quality pedestrian oriented type of streetscape.

We’ve incorporated an enhanced rear yard setback, so that’s gonna provide a greater degree of spatial separation between our site and our neighbors to the west at 20 Barons Court. That setback actually exceeds the city’s typical standards for this form of development. We put a position in the access driveway as far south as possible. The purpose of that is twofold.

Firstly, to provide as much separation as possible from the intersection. And then also serves the dual purpose of giving us enhanced separation from the existing property to the south. With those kind of key design features, we do feel that this is a very sensitive approach to infilling the site. It’s gonna provide much needed missing middle, style housing in a way that we think complements and enhances this neighborhood.

Appreciate your time and consideration, I think with those comments, I’ll adjourn and I’m available to answer any questions of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Any technical questions for the council, Frank?

Thank you. And through the chair, reading through the proposal, I did notice a couple comments, both from staff and then from residents. And I just wanted to ask a couple, I think maybe, it might be staff, but it might also be the applicant. Born on being the garbage disposal, so I saw some comments about is it gonna be on site or if it’s gonna be on the sidewalk and be picked up by the city?

And I don’t know the answer. Right, so just a question. I’ll go to staff first on design regarding garbage disposal. Through the chair, I would like to refer to the applicant to answer this next, I think they would be able to provide a better answer on this one.

Mr. Davis. Thank you and through the chair, there would be multiple options for waste collection. The first would be street side, along Upper Queen.

The city’s waste management guidelines, collection guidelines do allow for developments of 12 units or less to have street side collection. Second option, we have designed the site to accommodate a T-turn around for waste collection vehicle. So it could be even within a central waste collection location on the site or curbside in the internal sort of rear lane way. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, and through the chair, my second question was regarding drainage issues. I also noticed, again, there’s some comments about water pooling on some of the neighboring land. So I’m just wondering if drainage issues has been looked at with this application. I’ll go to staff on comments regarding drainage.

Through the chair, I’d like to defer to the applicant as well on this one. I think they’d be able to provide a better answer. Mr. Davis.

Through the chair, certainly willing to speak to drainage as well. So after the zoning bylaw amendment application, we will proceed to a higher level of detailed design. Civil engineer will be retained. They will be preparing a detailed grading and drainage plan.

There is a storm existing stormwater sewer on Upper Queen. Staff have confirmed through the review process that that would be the outlet for stormwater. We are required by law, the drainage bylaw, that no water basically spill on to adjacent properties. So all of the water at the site will be graded in a way that a water is directed to a catch basin that then funnels water out to the storm sewer on Upper Queen.

There may be a need for some onsite quantity control that’s typical in these style of developments that can happen through underground, basically small kind of tank. Councillor. Thank you. And last technical question.

Again, as Councillor Hopkins mentioned about Bill 23A with site plan control, I’m just wondering, like I guess it is kind of to staff. Like what is our ability? Like if we like everything about this application and we want to stay at like the same, is that what we’ll move forward? Or I guess I’m worried about like approving it and then having any changes between now and when it’s actually built, I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, it’s my Corby here. So through the zoning, we have done our best to regulate the location of those buildings and heights. We have required a south interior side yard setback to ensure the buildings are far enough away that the lane way would be located there. And again, with our minimum and maximum setbacks, generally the built form can only go in this location.

So if there are changes, it would be pretty minor, but through the zoning regulations and how we can control the development. Councillor. Thank you, that’s everything. Councillor Hawkins.

Thank you for allowing me another technical question. I just, I’m listening to the comments from my colleague. I’m not sure, I guess this is just staff. I understand this is a cluster townhouse unit and it’s not stacked.

So, I wonder if through you, if staff can just explain the difference between the cluster, which is what we’re having here in this development and not stacked, what is the difference between the two townhouses? Staff, can you explain to the between their cluster and stacked townhouses? Through the chair. So a stacked townhouse development is one unit on top of the other.

So it would be at a greater height of three to four stories. And you essentially double up your unit count through that form of development. Cluster development means more than one townhouse on the property. So you’ve got two rows of townhouses, which makes it a cluster development.

If it was just one row along the street, it would be a three townhouse. Councillor, Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’ll keep my comments specific to some technical questions, trying to get to residents as quickly as possible. The applicant briefly spoke to it with the waste and curbside collection of this development. One of the concerns that we’ve had from residents is if it is waste collected at curbsides in this area, the curb is street facing. So there is no boulevard space between the street and the curb in where people will be putting their recycling boxes, which can impede pedestrians right away as this is a busy thoroughfare for active transportation into the surrounding neighborhoods.

As we’ve heard concerns about paratransit lately and driveway with the applicant know or staff, if it’s wide enough for paratransit vehicles, should they be required to get in for these residents? Mr. Davis, can you comment on accessibility for paratransit vehicles? Yeah, certainly, and perhaps through the chair, I’ll touch on the first point as well, but the waste collection just wants more.

We’d obviously defer to the city of London in terms of their preferences. One of the things that we have done though is we have ensured that we’ve designed the site in a manner that we can accommodate the needed tea turnaround for a waste collection vehicle. So there is multiple options for waste collection that occurs internal to the site. So there’s that flexibility that we can take the direction from the city of London at their preference in terms of the paratransit vehicle.

Again, the site’s been designed with the tea style turnaround that accommodates a waste collection vehicle, which is actually has a larger turning radius than the paratransit vehicles. So the site would certainly be able to accommodate the paratransit vehicle. Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, I would still raise questions with the paratransit vehicles.

It’s not always the turning radius is the issue. It’s the actual loading space to get the residents in and out, realizing some of their driveways have been built to purpose. Didn’t meet measurements after they were built. And my final question is on page, so really it’s the row of trees at the back of the property.

Are those on the 489 Upper Queen Street property or are there residents who reside behind the property? Mr. Davis. Certainly and through you, Mr.

Chair. Part of the images and illustrations that we showed in our planning and design report depicted a small row of Cedar Hedge Row that exists along the West property line of 489 Upper Queen. There’s also an additional row, Cedar Row on the adjacent property at 20 Barons Court. They’re much larger, much more substantial.

So I think there was some confusion about whether those trees were in fact on our property. There is a row on our property and there’s a row on the adjacent property. So there’s both in this case. Councillor Palazzo.

I’m just looking forward to the public participation meeting, thank you. I’m sorry. I’m looking forward to the public participation meeting. Thank you.

Would you be less feedback? Yeah, we apologize for feedback. We’re trying to get our volumes as high as possible to make sure everyone in the gallery can hear us okay. Any other technical questions for the applicant from the committee?

Seeing none, I will go to the public. I just want to let everyone know. First of all, I’m going to ask for your name. Secondly, you will have five minutes and that with 30 seconds to go, I’ll give you a 30 second heads up.

I want to remind everybody to refrain from booing or from applause or clapping, et cetera. It’s hard enough for folks to speak without having the pressure of a lot of people here in the room today. So at this time, I’d like to go to the gallery for speakers to this, sorry. Did we open the PPM?

Yes. Is this on? Thank you. I see a gentleman up in the top right.

Please state your name and you have five minutes. My name is Ted Donaldson. I live at 76 Baron’s Court. Please go ahead.

I’m going to comment today’s discussion from a little bit of a different angle. So far, all I’ve heard is people talk about technical, technical issues, technical issues. And in all due respect, I think that you’re kind of missing the point a little bit. I want to talk about great neighborhoods and how growth in today’s context can allow them to change and thrive when done responsibly.

I was born in London and first lived in this neighborhood over 71 years ago. We were part of Westminster Township then and 49 Upper Queen was still a field when I was young. My early exposure to this area shaped my definition of neighborhood. I lived away from London for 50 years, but whenever I moved to a new city, both in Canada and the United States, I always tried to recapture for my family the neighborhood that I had initially grown up in.

In 2010, my wife and I moved back to London and immediately gravitated back to Old South. We purchased an infill lot, 42 feet wide, on baseline road between the east end of Elworthy and Cathcart. We built a home and we contracted a local builder, Julian LaRavir. And Julian told us he would only build something that fit the character of the neighborhood.

And we agreed. In fact, a local group that, and we organized tours of homes in the Old South, noted that our home was an excellent example of infill development that reflected the character of the surrounding neighborhood. We have since moved to Barron’s Court to be closer to my obsession with golf. Why am I telling you this?

Well, firstly, I am a long time resident of the area and have seen it through many phases that saw it retain its original character. Secondly, I understand infill development and believe in it. I know it must respect the character of a neighborhood and be a positive force to let neighborhoods thrive. But times change and the face of growth must change to consider and embrace better use of existing infrastructure and public transit and reduce the impact on our environment.

Urban sprawl is no longer the panacea for growth. Infill is essential. Nobody here sees another single family home being built on this lot. But we all believe infill must respect the character of our neighborhood, not change that character negatively forever.

The planning, I managed to get through the planning document, which trust me, was not easy. The planning department refers frequently to the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 as rationale for accepting this infill application. Yet, they ignore other aspects of the statement that support development and intensification standards that encourage a sense of place, promote well-designed form and conserve features that help define character. In other words, I think the department has willfully ignored what is already there that works.

And they are hell-bent on shoehorning, a seven-tenth acre parcel of land and they’re the perception of the future. They ignore the wishes of 71 neighbors who have taken the time to passionately and respectfully provide their reasons for opposing this development. That is just wrong. Infill must not be used as a scorched earth solution.

Infill must complement what is already there. What made it a great neighborhood. Infill must allow the neighborhood to continue to thrive in a manner that it currently thrives. Infill should be like a sculptor putting added touches to an already great neighborhood.

Infill is not a sledgehammer tearing down what already exists. As a committee, your job is to be a sculptor, not to act as the demolition crew. Your job is to find a way forward that achieves the London Plan inward and intensification goal yet respects the uniqueness and greatness of individual neighborhoods to approve this application as you act as a demolition crew. To send it back to planning, you act as a sculptor.

Thank you. Okay, I requested that applause or booing not happen. If it happens again, I’ll ask the room to be cleared except for speaker by speaker. It’s very intimidating for people who might speak that don’t agree with those that are expressing their support or their non-support.

So I ask you to be respectful of speakers in that regard. I ask the next speaker to come forward please. Go to the gentleman in the top right. May I have your name please and you have five minutes.

Ron Smith, I live at 501 Upper Queen Street, sorry, 507 Upper Queen Street. I moved to this area specifically because of the large lots in the single family and the unit architecture of the area. There are no two houses like within our area, which is a big draw to me. I understand, and I think that that lot is big enough to sustain infill, but not at the density and not with the style of architecture that they’re looking at.

They talk about 22 parking spaces, it’s 24. If there’s two parking spaces per unit, there’s 10 units and there’s four visitor parking, that’s 24 parking spaces. We have a lot of issues in our neighborhood with overland water, our ground is saturated and there is very little on this property that they want to develop after the development to absorb any of this watershed. Yes, we can put it in the storm drains, but if we allow this kind of infill to continue along Upper Queen Street, if we say yes to this, then you’re gonna have a very difficult time saying next note to the next developer who buys one of our lots and does the same thing.

At some point, you’re gonna have extreme water issues on Upper Queen Street, because you’re just not gonna have any grass to absorb it. I believe that there’s a couple of mature trees on adjacent lots that the root systems may be affected by the construction of this. We’ve lost a lot of trees in our neighborhood due to the ash boring beetle. To lose more trees, they’ve already cleared, I believe six trees off of that lot.

Why that was allowed, I’m not sure. There’s just a lot of issues that I have with it. It isn’t in character with the neighborhood. I, you know, the size of the garages are talking three meters wide.

It’s really not wide enough to park anything more than a subcompact car. I think that parking’s gonna be a big issue. Visitor parking’s gonna be an issue. Garbage disposal is gonna be an issue.

And the look of the neighborhood is gonna seriously change, which I think is not what, I mean, why do we have zoning? If we’re gonna allow a flip from an R1 to this high density, why don’t you just remove all zoning from the city and just evaluate each parcel of land as you see fiddle on the way? And, you know, we still haven’t seen a really good architectural drag of what this development’s even gonna look like. It’s just block townhouses.

Anyways, that’s all I have to say. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello.

Can you please state your name and you have five minutes? Yes, it’s Jean Gordon. I live at, can you hear me okay? We can, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I live at my wife and I, a land live at 20 Baronsport. We share 150 foot border with the 489 Upper Queen property, the, their West border, our East border.

Our property was severed in 2005 from that 489 Upper Queen property. And by way of background, there was a house constructed on the 489 property in 1958, very large home. There were only two families that ever lived there for the next 60 years. And in terms of recent events, Dr.

Beesonfall sold that property when his wife passed on. The next buyer was looking to sever it in two and build two properties. Trees were removed, et cetera. Their plans changed and it was sold to the developer.

So what I’m trying to say is this is not a derelict vacant lot. It was a home for 60 years. We are in favor of development of property for two or three single family homes, which would effectively triple or quadruple the density on that single lot, which including our house. So that would be triple or quadrupling the density.

And I think what we’re trying to suggest here is that this decision would be precedent setting, because on the one hand, if you declined this application, that would force developers to start to sever and build several homes on these very large lots, as opposed to effectively these triplexes. As the other gentleman said, on Upper Queens, there’s not a single duplex, triplex, fourplex, fiveplex. They’re all single family homes in varying sizes. So we’re recommending that the committee decline this application as it’s not characteristic of homes in the area.

It would be precedent setting in terms of ignoring existing zoning and provide uncertainty in the value of properties going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Looking for the next speaker, please. Go to the gentleman in the top left. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

Charles Azers, 495 Upper Queens, the house right beside the property in question, just to the self. The last gentleman pretty much stole most of what I was going to say. There are only single family homes on the street. Upper Queens was, at one time, a dead-end street.

It was opened up, nicks and a half, right through to South Dale. My father built the house in 1961. The property in question, there was a house on there. Before he built the house in ‘61, it was a beautiful house.

A very dangerous precedent happened in that they tore down a beautiful house on this magnificent property. Now, like the gentleman before me said, it was severed by Dr. Biesenthal. The property is still fairly large.

You could put two beautiful million dollar homes on that lot. You have to understand, Upper Queens have, all the homes are million dollar homes with large lots. There are no townhouses at all on that street. They’re just large homes with large lots.

So this is going to be a dangerous precedent if you allow this to happen. It will ruin the character of the street. London has beautiful areas, beautiful streets. This is one of them.

This is a gem. People pay large taxes because they like large properties. The people that will move into these townhouses will be renting them at some point. If they’re bought, people will be buying them for capital gain and rent them out to who knows who.

And then you start to get a deterioration of the area. And that’s my concern. So I will implore you to vote this down. This is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard.

And say no to this and build two or three beautiful million dollar homes on that lot. Thank you. Thank you. May I have the next speaker, please?

The gentleman at the top level on the upper left. Please go ahead, state your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Harrison Kelly.

And I live at 293 Commissioners Road East, which is directly north of the subject property. The London Plan talks about providing certainty for neighboring residents when these decisions are made. My wife and I chose to purchase this beautiful property. It’s 100 years old.

This house has been on up commissioners for 100 years. And we invested many, many thousands of dollars in restoring its original character. What you’re proposing south of this will completely destroy why we moved into this neighborhood in the first place. And as a long time I was born and raised in London, came from the north end down to the south, we should be afforded a level of certainty when we make decisions in investing in our properties.

And that’s what’s at stake today. If we choose to side with these developers or are simply looking to make a buck and stuff as many properties on this location as possible, it’s only a matter of time before the chips fall. And we’re already aware of other developers snapping up properties north and south of this location to do the same. And so I would like to appeal to you and to look for a level of certainty for Londoners heading into the future as well.

I understand that this is a time for change and we need solutions for the future here in London. But as a resident, I also deserve to have some certainty when I make investments in my property. And as has been shared, we have concerns about people coming into a high density or mid density location and not affording the same care in the property. We are part of the forest city.

I have planted 15 trees on my property since moving in five years ago. I don’t see a single tree on this plan. We’ve been debating cedar hedges on the west-hand side of this property. I don’t think that with the amount of concrete on this lot, there is space for a tree here.

So I’m not sure how this conforms with the residents around the property and how this will fuel our future London and what is depicted in the London plan. So I urge you to reconsider approving this application, not only looking at planting more greenery in our forest city on this property, dealing with the drainage that drains on to a right-of-way that we seem to have a haphazard response to as was mentioned. Oh, we’ll figure it out. We’ll figure out the garbage.

We’ll figure out all these things. Where is this level of certainty? Don’t make me regret my decision to invest in London. Thank you.

Thank you. For the next speaker, please. And I’ll ask a clerk if there are any in the room that would like to speak as well. I see a gentleman coming forward.

We’ll go to him first and the upper left. Please go ahead, sir, state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Mark Lennox and I live at 543 Upper Queen Street.

I would like to simply add my voice on behalf of everyone who’s not going to speak today. Virtually no one on the street is in favor of this proposed development. It is completely incongruous with respect to the serenity and the development and the character of the street. That’s beyond question.

And quite frankly, to read the planning report, it boggles the mind how they can come to the conclusion that this is an appropriate development for this lot. It is, you’d almost have to be living an opposite day for it to come to that conclusion. It’s not appropriate. The other thing too is just a footnote for the planning report rationale to conclude that this is an empty or an unused, unutilized or vacant lot.

That’s again, that simply should not be in the report at all. It’s completely disingenuous to make that suggestion as previous speakers have said. Yes, everyone knows that an official plan and a policy statement are good, appropriate guiding principles for municipalities to fit their zoning by-law into. In fact, the policy statement, as you will know, exhorts the municipality to render those guiding statements for development into a zoning by-law.

The zoning by-law is where the rubber meets the road in terms of the citizen rate pair, understanding what the development and what the future is going to be. If we can take at face value the fact that this municipality should have done that, then we read the by-law and we have certainty as to what’s going to take place in the future. And our five is not in that by-law, vis-a-vis the subject property. So the starting and stopping of this issue should be right there and I’ll conclude with this comment.

Yes, every community has to have a diversification of land use. Everyone agrees with that. Upper Queen is, as a mistake, a paradise of about 800 yards where people have come for decades to capture a certain flavor of living. Just north, just south of the street, we have all sorts of higher density development.

All along Southdale, same thing. The city has done well in terms of the outlying areas in developing the settlement area, as it’s called, allowing for high density, high rise residential, high density townhouse construction and plans of subdivision. But they’re not jumbled together. They’re well-planned on the north side, on the south-west side and on the east side of town.

So there’s no shortage, there’s no shortage, there’s no drastic need to jam 10 residences into this one lot. There’s about, I counted them up the other day, there’s about 40 houses along that stretch. By shoehorning, 10 more into a one lot area. You’re going to increase the density by 25%.

This is a bad, bad idea. No one wants it, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lennox.

Go to the next speaker in the gallery before I go to the anti-room. Go to the lady on the top left, please, go ahead. Please, ma’am. Erin Carroll, 590 Upper Queens.

And I’m here to add my voice to the chorus of opposition for this proposal. I just recently bought my house in November 2021 because of the character of the neighborhood, the large houses and the large green spaces with trees. I do not at all feel that the proposal is in character with the adjacent land use, that’s all. Thank you, Ms.

Carroll. I will go to the gentleman on the top right. Please state your name and you have five minutes. Hello, I’m Ross Bishop 464, right out street.

I’m in actually Ward 11, but I’m within 120 meters of this project. I just wanted to say when I read the planning department report, I just had the feeling that they were trying every which way to justify the applicant’s project. And I read all of our letters in there and I just thought it would have been nice if the planning department put as much effort into including what the citizens felt about this project rather than just staple in the letters. So I just wanted to have you aware of that how I felt.

I’m against this project and I hope that you reject it and send it back to staff and have them include in the process changes in that that reflect how the people feel ‘cause that’s who you’re supposed to be serving. The people, not civic and secondly, Skyler, through you Mr. Chair. Sir, I’d ask you to refrain from referring to any particular person in the committee.

You can refer to the committee as all please. Okay, one of the committee members who represents my ward was campaigning. One of the reasons we had a discussion, one of the reasons that she liked infill was that it would prevent ghettos from forming in London. And I thought that was interesting, but it seems like an odd thing to say.

And I thought, well, perhaps it could be clarified that if I could understand where a ghetto was in London, I could go look at it and see what this project is trying to prevent from occurring. So if the committee could direct me to a ghetto in London, I’d appreciate it. Thank you. Any other speakers in the gallery before I go to the interim?

I said, gentlemen, up in the top left, please state your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name’s Jason Slazook from 525 Upper Queen Street. Again, I just wanted to echo what others have said, provide my voice on this matter.

I’d like the committee to reject this proposal. We’re only talking about a parcel of land that’s three quarters of an acre. It’s really not that big. I don’t know how big this room is, but it’s probably just a little smaller than three quarters of an acre.

We’re talking about putting 10 properties that are clustered or stacked, whichever term you want to use now, on three quarters of an acre. As discussed, we’ve got 24 parking spots, two for each one of the properties plus four for visitors. I’m assuming that the average household now has two vehicles. So that leaves four guest spots.

Where is the overflow parking going to go? We’re on a very busy Upper Queen Street. There’s no parking out front. Where are these people going to park as one of the concerns?

I know when this particular topic came up, the very first person who spoke made the comment that the committee found this to be compatible and complimentary to this area and this neighborhood. And I just would like to flatly refute that and say it’s truly not. It doesn’t fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. It’s incongruent to the rest of the neighborhood.

There are no other properties like this along Upper Queen Street. And it’s a real shame. Old South has a real nice feel to it. That’s why my wife and I purchased our house on Upper Queen Street about 16 years ago.

We like the size. We’re not opposed to intensification. You’ve got a beautiful piece of land there. And like others have said, you could easily fit two or three properties on there.

Why are we trying to put 10 properties onto three quarters of an acre? It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood, that’s all. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Any other speakers in the gallery? Ma’am, please state your name and you have five minutes. I’m a little short. My name is Nancy Heind, I live at 16 Barons Court.

And I fully support everything that I’ve heard from all of my neighbors. I want to add just one more. My concern, I was reading, well, one of my many concerns, I was reading the City Landscapes Architects notes about the property specifically where the proposal refers to VEGs. When I first looked at that on the plan, I thought VEG, okay, that’s vegetation.

But then I stood at my window and had a look. And VEG on the one on the site is a fairly tall cedar tree line. It consists of 20 trees according to Ron Cody Landscape Architects report of June 2022. That’s not a hedge, that’s a tree line.

The neighboring VEG2 on 20 Barons Court consists of 14 cedars with heights of between seven and nine meters. Again, that’s not a hedge, that’s a tree line. It’s a mature tree line which will suffer no matter how much the developers try to protect it. Further, the City Landscape Architects indicates that trees one, two, and three will lose 20% to 40% of their root ball.

That’s a significant root loss, especially when the trees in question aren’t even your trees. They belong to their next door neighbor. This rather cavalier attitude towards trees and vegetation continues along all sides of the lot, which incidentally is on quite a slope. And I suspect being on the higher end of that slope, a lot of my runoff is going to run right into these proposed new townhomes.

Within the boundaries of the lot, I counted over 30 trees and shrubs, which the developer plans to remove, not protect, not protect a single blade of grass. They’re going to remove the whole works. And that includes three trees that the City just planted along the streetscape a few years ago. What a waste.

And what does that say about our forest city? I was born in London, actually, until I was two years old, our house stood right where City Hall’s parking garage is. So I know about forest city. Keeping the zoning at the current R19 doesn’t mean that trees will be protected.

It doesn’t mean some won’t be lost. But keeping it zoned as an R19 and subdividing the lot into two or even three parcels would certainly help impact or mitigate the impact to both the environment and the sewage system. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll go to the next speaker. See the gentleman on the top left. Please go ahead, sir. You have five minutes.

Give us your name first. Name is Cameron Anderson. I lead at 536 Upper Queen Street. We bought our home 26 years ago.

We’ve been there a long time. We are for change. I recognize the housing crisis. And I believe we should do something about it.

And I believe also that, you know, the suggestion that many of us have put forth is we’re fine with two or three. Ten is unacceptable. How do we move from zero to ten without better consultation? More concrete ideas about what is going to be impacting the neighborhood and the people, let alone the ecology.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Next speaker, ma’am, on top right.

Please state your name. You have five minutes. Hi, my name is Joan Cummings. I live at 547 Upper Queens.

My partner and I bought our house four years ago because we love the neighborhood. We like the character of the neighborhood. We like the large lots. We like the growth of the trees.

We like the vegetation. We like to be able to see with unabstructed views. And unfortunately, I think this proposal takes away a lot of those things that we look to when we moved into the area. And one of my biggest concerns is what happens next when the next developer comes to the city and asks for a variance.

As other people have said, there are already developers purchasing properties along the street. And one in particular, very close to my lot. And I just wonder what the city’s going to do for that. I understand there needs to be in fill.

The growth of the city is keeps expanding. But you can’t add 10 units to a single lot. I can see two or three. And I sure hope the city and the planning department takes that into consideration.

The next time a developer comes for a variance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cummings.

Any other speakers in the gallery? Hi there. Please go ahead. My name’s Holly Kelly.

I live at 293 Upper Queens. My husband and I moved there five years ago. And I remember when I first came to look at that house, falling in love with the area. I came to London about 13 years ago.

I’m not from the area. And I fell in love with neighborhoods like Highland. And I remember walking in neighborhoods like that, dreaming of one day, living in an area like that. And I have to say I was incredibly disheartened when I heard what was likely going to be developed onto Upper Queen.

I stayed optimistic in hoping that maybe as they had mentioned, they would provide an option that would match the integrity of the neighborhood. And when the little pamphlet came in with a picture of what it looked like, I was devastated. I’m regularly enjoying our backyard. We have wonderful neighbors.

And it’s peaceful and quiet where we live. And I couldn’t help being outside the other day, looking in that area and thinking of the box that is going to be staring down at me in my backyard if this moves forward. And I say that from a place of understanding that infill is needed. And I am open to that, just like everyone else in this room.

I look at infill if you’d consider such as 352 Rideout Street, which is a stunning version of that and matches the neighborhood of Old South and Highland. And I think would be a great fit for an area such as the lot that is vacant currently next to my house. We, like many other here in a short time, invested a lot into our home to match the integrity of all of the homes around us. And to ensure that that was a part of what we were keeping in this neighborhood, because we know the value of that.

And I am devastated to know that that same care is not being taken next to us, even though it was said that it would be when we first were a part of these meetings. My other concern is it’s obviously no surprise of what I do for a living, given how I’m standing here in front of you all. I can’t help but be concerned, given the intersection that I live very close to, I can say that I do appreciate the $1.4 million that was invested into making that a safer intersection for cyclists and pedestrians, given what I have seen in my career. Having said that, and I have mentioned this in meetings, which was completely kibotched and run and didn’t seem like there was any care from the other side that this lot and the driveway that you guys are suggesting is at a crest of a grade.

It’s at a crest of a grade, not only, but also with pedestrian and cyclist lanes, which I can’t help but see cyclists coming to and from and using them more frequently, which I think is fantastic. I can’t help but be concerned that where that will be located and the amount of vehicles and people coming to and from that unit, my concern for the safety of pedestrians walking that area and what will be more density in that unit. I agree with everyone else here. I think there is a way to do this.

I do not feel that what is being suggested right now is right for this neighborhood. And I hope that you will consider our police. Thank you. I’m the next speaker.

Go to the lady up in the top right. Please state your name, ma’am and do have five minutes. Hi, my name is Charlene Jones and I’m at 488-492 Upper Queen Street right across from the post site. I wanna say first, I agree with all of my neighbors here.

When I first seen the ad with the sign go up about the development, the plan for it, I thought there’s no way that that would ever be accepted. When we first bought our home, my husband and I, it was together about 1.8 acres and it was, we were planning on sub-dividement to build a few houses. We have six children thinking we could all kind of be together. We had so much pushback from the city when we submitted our plan that it would create too much traffic we’re too close to the corner, all this.

And now I’m looking out and thinking 10 extra houses on this little tiny lot, that’s okay. So that’s disappointing from all of our experience and what we’ve gone through. But secondly, I wanna say, we’re in a time of so much delivery and that street is just the two lanes, it’s so busy as it is. And you’ve got pure later trucks, food trucks, everything, they don’t pull into laneways and this plan doesn’t allow for anybody to be able to pull in and deliver anything anyways.

They’re all gonna be stopped along the road. It’s so difficult now, just trying for me, trying to get home from work from downtown, trying to get up, Upper Queens, just to be able to turn into my laneway across from this proposed development. That’s just gonna create such a backlog of traffic. And another thing I wanna ask, I don’t know if I can ask a question about the site plan approval, like why this development went from 11 units down to 10, is that so that they can avoid having to go through site plan approval now with the new Ford plan, so that they don’t have to then answer to anything, they can start building right away as soon as they have a permit.

Isn’t site plan approval supposed to protect all of us from the streets, okay, what it’s really supposed to look like, the water, all the complaints and the comments that we’ve heard here today. But that would actually allow them to bypass all of that, just by going to 10 instead of 11. So I think that’s something that we really need to consider, given them a go ahead, when there’s so much of question. Nobody hears against any development.

Nobody wants to look at an empty lot, I think we’re all tired of that. It would sure be nice to have something built, something that respects the neighborhood. This doesn’t, and we’ve yet to really even see what this is gonna look like. So that’s all I have to say, thank you.

Thank you, see the gentleman on the top left, please go ahead, sir. I am the final owner and all I wanna do is go on record saying, I agree with everybody here, we’re totally against it and hopefully you can vote it down. Thank you, that’s it. Thank you, sir.

Any other speakers in the gallery? I’ll ask, oh, I see lady up in the top left, please go ahead ma’am, you have five minutes. Hi, my name’s Carly, I live at 297 Commissioners Road. My house is to the north of the vacant lot, so my backyard faces it.

We bought this property where we live now before we had children, ‘cause we loved the character of the neighborhood and the big property behind us. And now we have three children under 10 and we really enjoy the area. And our big concerns when we heard about this development was more traffic, it’s a very busy intersection, so there’s definitely concerns about more cars coming and going, as well as parking. We share a private lane way with Holly and Harrison and a lady on the other side of us and we can see constantly when people were coming to look at the lot, they were blocking us in and we’re concerned if this development goes ahead that we’re gonna lose our lane way.

With guest parking, people just using it for their own advantage, so that’s a concern, as well as drainage. We do have issues with water constantly going into our yard, into the lane way, it’s affecting us and our neighbors that share the lane way. So we stand with our neighbors and opposing the build. We feel like it’s too many houses on this lot and we hope that you guys will listen to our suggestions and hear our concerns, thank you.

Thank you, any other speakers in the gallery? That’ll ask the clerk if we could go to the anti-room there for speakers there. If there’s anyone in committee room five that would like to speak to this matter, please approach the podium, thank you. Mr.

Chairman. Please go ahead. May I speak, can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead, please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Oh, hello Al, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tim Carroll, 593 Upper Queen Street. Sorry I couldn’t be there in person, but health issues and COVID are keeping me home.

My entire family, my wife, two adult children, we’re all born here in London. I purchased my present home at 593 over 35 years ago. My daughter recently purchased her home across the street at 590 Upper Queen Street. We all chose this street because of its exclusivity, its single family homes, and until now we felt confident we had made a good decision.

We put our lives into making our homes better, investing in the future through our properties. We felt safe and our investments secure in the knowledge that our street was zoned our one single family, which is the designation we sought out when we moved here from another area of town. Allowing multiple dwellings on each lot would fundamentally change the character of our neighborhood and harm the investments we’ve made into our homes. The single family zoning designation provides a sense of stability and security and has been a major factor in attracting homeowners to this area.

These days, the world is changing faster than ever. What used to be fantasy is now reality. One can’t rely on any news without being, any news being true without constant verification. I could hardly believe my own city would completely betray all our loyal taxpayers on the street and even think of Baldi allowing 11 units on one lot.

My daughter’s house is also an infill property, but it’s a single family home in a small group of four homes, built on a previously vacant ravine lot over 20 years ago, or single family homes on one lot. That’s a huge increase, but the homes fit into the streetscape. They don’t look out of place. They’re nestled into the tree setting and complement the neighborhood.

The proposed development of multiple townhouses is the opposite of my daughter’s place. There are fortunately quite a few houses away from there. All this new development is quite a few houses away from my house, so I don’t have to look at them. The problem is once the city approves one development, more are sure to follow.

Already there’s stories of other large lots being snapped up in anticipation of this committee’s ruling. Why are there building zones at all? And if my city just plans to ignore them, don’t forget people. People make up to city and their hopes and dreams have been seriously affected by this proposed incongruous eyesore.

Please understand my position in this quickly contrived plan and say no, let me resume my quiet and happy life in this city of my birth without having to fear the whole street will be forever irrevocably changed by this decision. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll also clerk for a speaker in the overlay room.

Good evening. My name is Mary Beth Bazzina. I live at 573 Upper Queen Street. I don’t want to repeat what’s already been said, but just to support the wonderful comments of all of my neighbors.

And just want to share a couple of little stories, I suppose. We’ve lived in our property for 25 years and lived in this part of the city for over 30 years. My husband was born here. I wasn’t.

He was. He and his father actually worked in the original home at 489 Upper Queen Street and built some of the cabinets in that home. And during that time, my husband then around 11 years old used to go home to his mom and say, mom, one day I’m going to live on Upper Queen Street. And here we are in our beautiful property on this lovely street.

And I’m sure that many of my neighbors have also had the story of people commenting when they hear that where you live. Oh, you live on Upper Queen Street. That’s such a beautiful street. I love driving down that street.

My biggest fear is that this beautiful street is at a huge risk here based on the decision that’s made today, not only in the beauty of our street, on the conservation of trees and the potential for new tree growth on our street as other homes as the previous speakers have said, might get snapped up and developed as well. I’m concerned about our property values. And also very concerned as a couple of the previous speakers mentioned about traffic, I know that for us, we live on the same side of the street as 489 and getting out, making a left-hand turn on Upper Queen is always difficult during rush hour, especially. I don’t know how 20-some odd cars are going to be driving in and out of that property, especially during rush hour, so close to the intersection there.

I think it’s going to be a huge risk, safety risk for pedestrians, for drivers, for cyclists. And I didn’t hear anything about that in any of the reports as a consideration. Please say no to this. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers in the auxiliary room? Hello there. So my name is Andrew Marlow.

I live at 47 Cowan Avenue, not directly on Upper Queen, but I just pulled out Google Maps a little bit closer than some of the other people I’ve spoken today. I just wanted to, I guess, be the lone voice and maybe be a little bit worried for my safety ‘cause I’m walking out of here who is really strongly in support of infill in this area. I moved to the area about three years ago. If I were trying to move there today, I would not be able to afford to ‘cause housing prices have gone up so much, not just in London, but in this area specifically.

This area is very close to some of London’s largest employers. I work at both LHSC’s Victoria Campus and at the Parkwood Campus of St. Joe’s. It’s about a 25-minute walk, which is maybe more than what a lot of people would do, but I’m actually, it takes me less time to get to work than a lot of the other people I work with because they’re driving from such a far distance because they just can’t find housing that is closer to these sites.

We’re struggling so much with staffing issues that are directly related to people not being able to live close to where they work. They just really can’t afford the housing nearby. If we wanna have services like hospitals, staff need to be able to live in the area around them. This area is also well-served by public transit.

I am an LTC user. I took the bus to get here today. The four routes, which I took, yeah, there’s a stop directly outside of this development for that. Going between downtown and Fanshawe, it’s close to the 13, the six, lots of like routes that London invests some money to make sure these run pretty frequently.

I know parking is gonna be an issue, but this is one of the better-served areas that is not right now densely developed. So yeah, I just wanted to say that not everyone in the area is against this development. I don’t think many people who support it took the time to come out here. I probably wouldn’t have myself if I didn’t get to A.

Notice in my mailbox, basically from someone else in the neighborhood who was strongly opposed and wanted to make sure there was at least one voice who was pushing to make sure that we can make sure London stays a place that lots of people can live and help grow a thriving community. Thanks so much to all the city staff and committee members who are spending their time here at the signal. Thank you. Any other speakers, Clerk?

Good evening. Adele Macri, I live at 540 Upper Queen Street. And I do oppose the application as proposed, like many others that have spoken tonight, do support a modest intensification for the neighborhood. I guess I have a question regarding if this change, the R5 zoning is going to be consistently applied to Upper Queen Street, how have the cumulative effects of the intensification of the street have been considered?

I’m sorry, can you repeat that question for me, please? If the intent of the R5 zoning is to be consistently applied to integrate these proposals for intensification of Upper Queen Street, how have the cumulative effects of this intensification been considered? Thinking of traffic, we’ve also heard of the waste management services and noting the property is on both a vertical and a horizontal curve close to the intersection where the traffic backups could impede the effectiveness of the intersection. Keeping note of questions, just so you know, that I will be asking staff once we are finished with the public participation.

Please go ahead. I wanted to know if there was a study that was going to be looking at the cumulative effects if the intent. I’ve got that one. Yeah.

Okay, I’m good, thank you. Please go ahead with your further comments. Are you finished? Okay, thank you.

I understand we have a few more speakers online. Do we have a clerk who would be the next speaker? Martha Hook and James Blocker. Please go ahead, Ms.

Hook. Hi, yes, I will just start my video here. Okay, hi, thank you for taking all of this time to get together. I think it’s really important to note that we are opposed to it.

We are across the street from this development project and what we do as a profession is we run a unique design and build firm. So when we were looking for a piece of land to build our dream home on, we were very specific about the neighborhood that we were looking at, specifically for very interesting architecture, the charm of London. That’s what we were looking for. And that community was Upper Queens.

So we bought the piece of land and we are very excited to build a house that we feel will take the community into our thoughts and really just do a great service to the character of the community. It’s incredibly frustrating that on the other side of things where you can have other pieces of land that you’re not building homes on, that you’re specifically in your brain thinking, I’m going to do a multi-home design and I’m just going to do a quick profit. That’s what I’m intending to do. There are specific pieces of land in London that are zoned for this.

So when I am looking for a piece of land to do this type of project on, I don’t just infiltrate a community, find a big piece of land and say, oh, how many pieces of, how many pieces can I cut this up into? Who cares what the neighbors think? I’m going to make as much cash for myself and my investors as I possibly can. And I’m just going to push this and change the zoning because who cares, right?

There are places in London zoned for multifamily and this is not one of them. So why is it fair now to have these investors take this land, sever it, not think about the character, not think about the neighbors who are supposed to it and just build whatever they want. ‘Cause what is stopping? What is stopping me?

Why now should I go to the challenge of building something that is, has the character of the community? Why should I? When Guy across the street is just doing a quick cash thing, shoving as many units on there as possible. And who cares?

Because that’s the point we think that this community has reached. It’s just like who cares? Just we’ll figure out the garbage later. We’ll figure out the traffic later.

We brought then knowing that the traffic is difficult. I have two young kids. It is a concern for me. So having 24 parking spots plus people coming in and out all the time, how do you possibly think that this is the piece of land to do that on?

There are other zoning places that when we look at buying a property, we don’t say, you know what? Let’s figure it out later. Let’s just buy the property several into as many pieces as we can. And we’ll get the count to change their mind.

Don’t worry, who can’t? You don’t do that because we respect the zoning. That’s in place because it is there for a reason. So all I ask is that you guys really in there in the first place, how about we create some sort of, you know, communication with the neighborhood because it is so strongly opposed.

I’m presenting like we need more housing. We’re not saying that we don’t need more housing, we do. But what we’re saying is it can be done in an effective way, not the way that this is being handled right now. And that’s all I have to say.

Thank you. I’ll go to the clerk for the next speaker on Zoom. Barry D and Susan Bragg. Please go ahead, Mr.

D. You have five minutes, Mr. D. Where can we go in the next speaker, please?

You have no other proof people on Zoom. I’ll just give a second here just in case the gentleman’s having trouble to connect. In the meantime, I’ll look one more time to the gallery to make sure that we have all the speakers have had an opportunity to address the committee. As the clerk, any in the other room that are at the mic.

Okay, I see a lady at the mic at the top, right? Please go ahead, ma’am, with your name and you have five minutes. My name’s Kate Keating and I’m representing 503 Upper Queen Street where I grew up and my parents continued to live there. My mom still lives there now, partly because she’s strong like ox at 96 years old, but partly because it’s a 1950s house with a lot of green space and it is a split level and she is able to do the stairs, still know the neighbors, enjoy the green space at just the right scale, I’d say.

Long story short, I have been there a lot, especially during the pandemic, helping my mom and I’ve totally appreciated the good bones, both of the house itself. Whenever someone comes to do repairs for a lot of the things that are still original because they’ve lasted really well, it’s fun to have repair people come and say, wow, look at how they did the drainage then, look at how they did this, look at how they did the windows, it’s not like that now. Not to say that things shouldn’t change, of course they should, I agree with all of the comments here, time for development, time for change, there have been modifications as previous residents have said, but I’d say that respecting the character of a neighborhood that works of a place with good bones, not just the house and the yard, but the whole area does represent a kind of balance of scale, a kind of mid-market kind of balance of residents and people and neighborhoods and the parts that aren’t broken, we shouldn’t fix it for the sort of a short-term gain and what I would say is a greedy, insensitive development that really could be much better and appreciated by the area and truly help to address the housing crisis that we really are in, thank you very much. Thank you, any other speakers in the gallery?

All right, we’ve exhausted our speakers list in the B-room and on Zoom and I just wanna see if this person’s going to the mic or is, and she’s not, okay. So I think we’ve we’ve reached, we’ve concluded the public participation meeting, I would look to committee from over to close, Councillor Hopkins and the seconder. Mr. Chair, I’m sorry, it’s part of Westlake Power.

Before you close the public participation meeting, we do have one more person on Zoom, Mr. Berry, I believe the last name is Deeth, I’ve tried to unmute him and I’ve requested him to unmute, he has pre-registered to speak. Mr. Deeth, are you able to speak?

Are you a muted issue, clear it up, please go ahead. One final warning here, I have to keep things moving. I’ll give you a few more seconds. Okay, so we have a motion to close the public participation meeting and it’s been seconded, so I will call the vote.

Opposing the vote, a motion carries, five to zero. So thank you and I want to thank the gallery for respecting the speakers and keeping your applause and other comments or support to a minimum. I really appreciate that. There were a few questions raised and I just want to get to those right now before I go to the committee to staff.

Sorry, bear with me, please. Just to staff, there was a question regarding drainage with all the asphalt in the parking. Can that be addressed, please? Through you, Mr.

Chair, we’d like the applicant to actually answer that question. As you can appreciate, there’s no longer site plan approval required for units 10 units or less and as such, a lot of this will now be dealt with at the building permit stage and there will be a lot grading plans required, but the consulting engineer will need to address all those and make sure that all the grading matches existing grades on surrounding lands and to ensure that there’s no sediment erosion control or impacts of drainage on neighboring properties as well as the city property. I will go to the applicant. I have some comments on concerns regarding drainage considering we have a lot of asphalt paving that’s going to be part of it.

Through you, Mr. Chair, and appreciate the opportunity to clarify, with this particular development, the size and scale of the asphalt area is not a typical of a cluster-style development. It is common through next steps in the detailed design process. A grading and drainage plan will be prepared by a professional engineer.

The city does have a drainage by-law that has requirements baked into that. Permit will be required, so we’ll be required to demonstrate that the drainage solution here on this site will work, and all water will be contained on the property and diverted to the appropriate stormwater sewer system. Thank you, and there is also a question regarding garbage, but I believe the applicant has already addressed that and there’s no further comments from staff. Again, as a site plan is excluded because of the 10 units.

Through you, Mr. Chair, that’s correct. Thank you. Can staff comment on damage to trees or tree roots that would be involved in the development here?

Through the Chair, as part of the submitted tree report by the applicant, they have recognized that the majority of the trees proposed to be removed for the project are smaller non-mature trees. Our landscape architect has also reviewed the submitted report and found no issues with the proposal and specified that no trees being removed are over 50 centimeters. So in this case, the applicant must only coordinate the removal of the three city trees with the forestry operations. And the approved tree preservation report also demonstrated that there will be no impact to the existing offsite private trees on adjacent properties.

And that includes those at 20 Barons Court 481 Upper Queen Street and 495 Upper Queen Street. Thank you. And I will now go to a committee for thoughts and comments, motions, et cetera. Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, just to get the conversation going, I do have a couple of questions and wanna thank the community for coming out. And it is just maybe following up on the last question about the tree report and the landscaping plan. Do we know what that looks like given that we’re not going through a site plan process? Just wanna know a little bit more about what is expected with the landscaping plan on this site.

Mr. Davis, can you comment on that please? Thank you, Mr. Chair and through you.

Through next steps, we will be preparing a landscape plan. The intent for the project is that all the standing and not being subject to site plan control is that we would design the development as per the site plan control by-law. So there will be trees planted along the perimeter, also in the amenity areas of each individual dwelling unit, looking at the tree preservation plan. All of the perimeter trees that fall with on adjacent properties will be retained.

So in fact, in a post-development scenario, we will actually see a net increase in tree coverage on this property, I’m sorry. Yeah, and just a follow up. We know what percentage of areas being landscaped. I know in past reports, we usually had a better understanding when zoning applications came forward as to what’s going to be left on the property.

And given that again, the community is not going to be able to see how it may look at the end. I think more information, if you can share, would be appropriate. Mr. Davis.

Through you, Mr. Chair. 41% of the site will be maintained as landscaped open space. 27% of the site will be a lot coverage through building.

And I think one thing that’s important to point out is through the existing R19 zoning that applies to the site, those metrics that I just round off, that would actually meet the standards of R1 zoning as well. Councillor. Thank you for that. And just one last question about the designation if this zoning application goes forward, and maybe this is a question through you, Mr.

Chair, to staff that the R5 is only designated to this property and not along the roadway and to other properties just to get clarification there. I’ll go to staff for that clarification. Through the Chair, so this specific zone is only being applied right now to 489 Upper Queen Street. If that same zoning was to be applied to other properties along the street, that would have to be considered at the time of a proposal.

Right now, this is only 449 Upper Queen, so it would only be considering that site that context. I’ll go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Two questions to pose through you.

I think this first one is to our staff, although the applicant may have comment as well, but I believe it was noted in our staff report. We heard several questions about, was this proposal reduced from 11 to 10 so that it could circumvent site plan approval processes? But my understanding from the report is that the 11th unit was actually removed to provide pedestrian, a dedicated pedestrian access way through to Upper Queens. That was mentioned in the report, and I just want to make sure that that, in fact, is accurate that the loss of a unit was actually partly through discussions with between the developer and our staff to ensure proper pedestrian through ways were provided.

I think I’ll go to the applicant here, and I don’t want the staff to presuppose and changes in the application, Mr. Davis. Thank you, and through the chair, yes. So that’s correct.

The reason for the removal of that unit is to, in discussions with staff, a desire to accommodate some additional room for a dedicated pedestrian road walk, leading from the back row out to Upper Queen. And through that, they also affixed, they enshrined that enhanced side yard into the zoning. So there’s now a minimum 10 meter side yard. So it’s kind of twofold, enhanced separation, and the walkway.

It really truly has nothing to do with the site plan control process and in fact, for these small developments, most of the requirements that we would normally complete and the city would review through site plan control, we will continue to complete. Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, I know this one is for our staff.

We heard a couple of speakers talk about concerns of the cumulative effect, as more and more info potentially comes along, that the storm and sewer capacities would then be beyond their ability to handle. But through you to our staff, we do conduct a stormwater and wastewater sewer capacity analysis when we’re looking at each individual application. If memory serves me, I certainly recall a development on Oxford Street near Fanshawe College, where the staff report indicated that our capacity was at its limits and so was not supporting the development moving forward. So I just wanted, because the public has asked, make sure that that’s communicated that we do look at capacity as developments are brought forward.

Each one, it’s not that we don’t review them as applications come forward. I’ll go to staff to confirm the Councillor’s thoughts. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, this is something that, again, through the engineering consultant would consult with our engineering team, and our engineering team would be monitoring on a regular basis as they do across the city. Councillor Lewis. Okay, thank you for that, that’s all my questions at this time. Any other comments or questions?

Councillor Frank. Yes, I’d like to start by applauding the community organizing that’s been done. As a past community organizer myself, I am constantly in awe of what people are able to do in the capacity, so I’d like to congratulate the community for the flyers that were delivered, for the emails that were sent, for the calls that we got, and for the stacked gallery and overflow room. I think it’s so important that community come together on issues that matter to them, and this is really evidently something that the community cares dearly about, and it’s so great to see so many neighbors working together, so I just wanna say kudos to you for that.

That being said, I’m gonna have to disappoint you, and I’m sorry for that in advance. We’re in a climate and housing crisis, as many of you have noted in your comments and in your remarks, and we desperately need density and info across our city. This, in my opinion, is a perfect location, and in following up with one of the comments that we heard from the overflow room. This location is on many bus routes.

It’s on a cycling path. It’s within walking distance to parks, groceries, pharmacies, schools, and being able to build density, being able to build on existing services, and on existing areas like that is much more efficient, effective, and it increases our tax base without having to impact the climate crisis as much as a single family home at the edge of the city would. And I also had some of my campaign language quoted back to me in emails, which I appreciate. It’s a good reminder.

Neighborhoods are incredibly important there, in my opinion. We need great neighborhoods to have great cities, and again, I hear that your neighborhood is awesome. But neighborhoods are changing as we develop, and we do need to keep going inwards and upwards. And I understand this neighborhood is developed at a different time, and I understand that this change maybe feels abrupt.

But again, we’re at the point where all neighborhoods have a role to play in our housing crisis, and that includes accepting, welcoming, and celebrating in fill. So that being said, I’d like to support the staff recommendation on this application, primarily because we are in a housing and a climate crisis, and we do need info. Are you moving that, Councilor Frank? Do I have a seconder?

Councilor Lewis. So we have a motion moved and seconded. Any other comments? Councilor Palosa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me at your committee. Because it’s not one I serve on. You heard from many residents today, and I took great time during the election to go through door-to-door and tell everyone as the serving council from the last term and re-election this term, how the planning process works, the timelines they could expect, and grateful to see so many of them out and engaged this evening, online and in-person, and through the correspondence we’ve all received in advance of this.

You’ve heard the high majority of them are saying, absolutely, this is an underutilized parcel of land. They want to see the regeneration. They know we have a beautiful neighborhood as I live in that neighborhood area myself, and they want to welcome new neighbors to it. They don’t like seeing the vacant parcel of land, especially knowing what a beautiful building once did there.

They’re concerned about the trees, and absolutely this area has poor drainage. It’s very clay-based, and I know at least my sub-hump will run in the summer while the grounds cracked on top. It’s still flowing underneath. And absolutely I support, and as you heard from residents, high majority of them support mixed housing developments coming into this neighborhood.

The ones cited in the staff report that are 1.2 and 1.1 kilometers away, one has a driveway entrance, and it’s not on the road. That’d be the one quoted on Upper Queen Street farther up, and the other one quoted is not off Upper Queen Street, and has a different road it’s off of, that’s not a collector street. So a couple key differences on that. As staff was saying that the frontage is aligned on the north, you can see from the diagrams it is, but to the property to the north, the second row of housing is where the residence current house is.

It is not in alignment and is out of characteristic in the neighborhood. I also would raise the concern that this type of intensification is out of characteristics, and for the London plan, ensuring new development are a good fit within an existing neighborhood. Five of these units in one row set back further from the road, I could definitely support. Residents have highlighted the concern that there are vacant properties of other homes that have been taken down the neighborhood with a worry that you start to see changed, and the next one’s already lined up to go, and then drastically changing the field of this neighborhood and how it’s been built.

The bike lanes and the new intersection redevelopment is great for the neighborhood, but as residents have laid out for you, there’s no neighboring on-street parking. It’s bike lanes all the way up the hill. The closest would be Mitch’s Park. There is a private line way, as one resident reached out and explained to you that services the homes facing Commissioner’s Road.

If those get blocked, neighbors will be stuck and have to take measures into their own hand for how to gate it or put up proper signage, which it’s clear that it’s private, but already we’re having issues. So that’s my concern. I can’t vote no at this committee, just for residents know this will come one way or another at a committee today and then go to the full council for a vote on February 14th, and that will be the final council decision of what’s to be done with this property. So just making sure that residents know how things proceed from here tonight and then through the rest of council.

So I thank committee for hearing residents tonight. There is many of them, and I will share that we ask for community engagement, the community comes out and they’re telling you clearly as current residents in that neighborhood what they would prefer to see. And I can understand how some of them are feeling. This is a check the box process ‘cause majority of them aren’t interested in this development as it’s presented, but would like it worked on to come back.

And it seems that committee has a very different idea of what’s in store for the future residents of the neighborhood and then thank you. Thank you. Are there committee members or members of council? Council, Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and through you. I did second this with Councillor Frank and I understand that the community’s going to be disappointed in that. But I have to look at this and Councillor Frank already touched on some of the points that I’m looking at this through as well.

A 10-unit town host development really is gentle intensification, particularly just a few meters away from a major arterial road, like commissioners that served by transit services. I know that probably late next month or sometime in March, I’m gonna have a proposal coming forward in my ward for an eight-story apartment building and I’m gonna be supportive of that one too. And there are going to be people in my ward who will not be happy with that decision. But we don’t just have a housing crisis.

We have a housing affordability crisis. And I mean, no disrespect to anyone who spoke tonight, but we don’t need more million dollar homes. We need more affordable homes. And we need to have some infill happening in all areas of the city so that it is balanced out.

So I do support this proposal. I do understand where the objections are coming from. I do wish that we still had powers that the province has removed from us that would have allowed for some site plan control measures to be put in writing from this committee, but that is no longer a power we have. And that is something that is frustrating, I think to every member of this committee, I know it was frustrating to members of this committee in the last term as well before the end of the term.

And it is something that we will be continuing to talk to our MPPs as well as the provincial government as this moves forward. ‘Cause it does present some pretty significant challenges for us in terms of our planning. But I have to balance that on the hall. And to me, this really is gentle intensification.

I talked about an apartment building in my own ward where we’re gonna see 100 units. This is 10. The traffic on Upper Queen already is over 12,000 vehicle trips a day. So I really struggled to see 10 extra units making the traffic out of control.

I understand about the cumulative effect, but again, this gets reviewed as applications come in. And right now, the cumulative effect would not change the classification of this road. It just would not add that much more traffic. So those are the reasons that I’m gonna be supporting this.

And obviously we’ll see what other Councillors have to say, but with 47,000 units of housing needed in this city, I think 10 is a pretty gentle intensification in this area. And it would just, again, I appreciate what the community said, I don’t dismiss it, but we do have to look at on the hall, what’s good for the city. And so thank you to everybody who’s come out and to our staff and to the applicant for the work that they’ve put into this. I know not everybody’s gonna be happy with it, but I think this is a good proposal to move forward on.

Any other comments or questions? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to each and everyone on committee for your comments. And thank you, again, for the community for coming out. And I will be supporting this recommendation. And just to follow up on the Deputy Mayor’s comments about infills in our city and the need for housing, it is very, very important.

And we experience many, many infills. I represent Ward 9 and on planning because I usually have at least one, I’m surprised I don’t have any on this agenda, but there are many infills and the challenges are great. Our communities do change when we have a different form of housing come forward, but this is that missing middle that we desperately need in our city. We no longer build subdivisions when we put in houses that all look the same.

We put in medium, we put in high, we put in commercial. And yes, we put in a few homes as well, but we do those mixed uses. And for me, neighborhoods, the challenges are great. I’ve experienced it myself.

It changes difficult. There’s no doubt about it, but I am supportive of this recommendation for a number of reasons. I’m really pleased that there’s sufficient landscaping, number one, the removal of not very many trees, the protection of boundary trees. This is in a transit area.

It is supportive. If anything, the parking is quite high for the 10 units. The density is 36 units per hectare. I think it will guarantee the community that it would not be allowed for any further intensification.

I just want to just add the fact that I’m just going through all my notes. I want to make sure I haven’t forgotten anything. I do want to get back to the need for a level of certainty in the community. I don’t know how we do that.

I think it is a concern that we no longer have that site plan process. I would encourage the community if this is passed, and this will go to the next council for a final vote as well, but there needs to be some level of certainty to the community as to when we approve the zoning application, how it’s going to look in the end, and I would encourage the community to reach out, be it to staff or to the councilor for further information. I think it is important that the community understand what is going to be happening in their neighborhood. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? I’ll ask the vice chair to take the chair. I will assume the chair, and I have Councillor Lehman on the speaker’s list. Thank you.

This is a hard one for me. With the London Plan, there’s a lot of very clear parameters that staff uses to approve or not approve applications. In this case, we’ve got an application that could be three, three stories high, it’s two stories high, it’s 10 units. Townhouses and close to transit routes, arterial roads, commissioners.

On the other side though, there is a very great area that the London Plan deals with, and that is whether it is in keeping with the neighborhood. And I understand what people had said about accumulative prospects here. These are large lots. And I don’t disagree that they could be future developments along Upper Queens in this area.

In which case, I would argue that there is a considerable amount of change in the neighborhood. Now, some would argue that that’s fine. These are large lots and large lots to be allowed. In which case, let’s proceed.

However, it is in the London Plan that we do have to take that into account of the nature of the neighborhood and how it would affect that neighborhood. So, this is hard for me ‘cause I understand the other committee members that we do have a need for affordability and for housing and I get it. So, that being said, I’m not going to approve this application and I won’t vote against it. However, I do understand my committee members, colleagues, I’m aware they stand.

So, I just want to make it clear for the reasons that I stated. I will return the chair to Councillor Layman. I have no other speakers on the list. Thank you.

Are there any other comments or questions that I will call the vote? I was in the vote. The motion carries three to two. Thank you.

We’ll move on to 3.5. And this is 608 Commissioners Road West, public participation meeting. And I will look for a mover to open the PPM. Councillor Frank, I have a seconder, Councillor Lewis, call the vote.

closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I will ask the committee members if they have any questions, technical questions for the staff. We have the staff report on our agenda.

Not seeing anything, I will go to the applicant. Oh, sorry, Councillor Vameer Bergen, do you have a technical question for the staff? Thank you, Chair. It came to my attention by some very observant constituents that the statistic being used for the area of this lot, 2.1 hectares is indeed not the case.

They were doing some basic calculations and came up with rather than 2.1 hectares. It’s actually only 0.45 hectares. Or put it another way, just slightly over an acre for 95 units. So I just wanted to get that clarified and confirmed from staff to staff.

Oh, there we go. Yes, this was just a technical error in the report. The size of the site is actually 1.1 acres. And just looking at the density calculations, the density calculations were based upon that, the correct number of 1.1.

And they are looking for 215 units per hectare, which is the 95 units. Councillor, that’s fine. I just wanted it clear that we’re dealing with a one acre lot. Thank you.

Seeing no other questions for staff, I’ll go to the applicant to please give your name and you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Harry Frucio, some of the Zalinka preamolimited. We are the planning consultants and agents for this application. Our clients are also online, witnessing this proceeding and are available to answer any questions as well. First of all, we want to thank staff for a very cooperative process throughout.

We certainly want to thank them for their efforts on this application. Normally, I wouldn’t have much to say, Mr. Chair, with a positive staff recommendation, but knowing that there’s going to be some concerns expressed by potentially by the neighbors and the local council, I feel we need to reiterate some of the points that were made at the last public meeting. Obviously, we understand that our neighbor concerns still with this application, relating to traffic and intensification.

We’ve had two virtual open houses where we presented the application and revised site plan to the neighbors and we received comments from them. Our client has made significant revisions to this application leading up to this point. Based on the information we receive both from staff and the public, just for the committee’s information, our client acquired additional property from close to after they made this application, they bought the corner piece at West Mount Crescent and Commissioners Road to provide a better property for this type of development, to bring a building closer to the intersection and to allow for better access off of West Mount Crescent. The above-ground parking structure that was originally proposed has been removed.

That allows for more at-grade amenity space by putting the parking underground as well as more sufficient opportunities for landscaping. The proposed building now complies with all required setbacks, the permitted building coverage, landscape open space. The only thing we’re asking for right now is the increase in height and density to be commensurate with what the London plan policies allow for. Main building entrances will be positioned facing close to the street.

And the online, as I said before, there will be sufficient woods now along the perimeter and internally for enhanced landscaping within this development. So while we appreciate there are still outstanding concerns expressed by the neighborhoods, it remains our opinion that the revised proposal is in keeping with the city’s intent for development within the urban corridor place type and along the civic boulevards, and it satisfies the city’s urban design goals. In this case, the proposed development is in keeping with the city’s vision for growth and intensification along its major corridors. This application does not request anything that goes against that vision.

Furthermore, the proposed development will assist the city in achieving its goals for providing more residential units in a form that is attainable to a wider range of the population and in close proximity to transit in a wide range of support services. And in addition, we are still providing four of affordable units as part of this development. So there’s only application before you request the increase height and density. It merely implements London plan policies that allow up to six stories with no density restrictions at this location.

Of note, the London plan does not contain any special policies that exempt this area of the city from these policies or restricts this type of form, this type or form of development. The revised staff report provides a detailed response to the issues that were raised at the last public meeting, and we continue to support staff’s position on these matters. We reached out to staff shortly after the last public meeting regarding the any potential changes to the access location for the site, and they told us out right that they would not support access off of Commissioner’s Road. So the site plan remains as you saw at the last public meeting.

To date, you have two planning opinions and two traffic opinions that are in complete alignment as it relates to this application. We’re not aware of any conflicting professional opinions regarding land use or traffic as it relates to this application. We’ve engaged the public on more than one occasion, beyond what is typically required, and we believe that we have considered and addressed all comments to the best of our abilities, while still providing a proposal that adequately balances the city’s objectives for growth and intensification. So we are in full support of the staff recommendation that’s before this evening to approve the zoning amendment, and we have no issue with the matters that have been addressed or to be considered as part of the site plan process.

So with that in mind, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I’m certainly open to any questions that may you have, and I thank you for your time. Thank you. - Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant before I go to the public? Seeing none, anyone in the gallery that would like to speak to this? Go ahead, ma’am. We have five minutes, please give us your name, thank you.

Can you hear me, first of all? We can hear you fine, thank you. Okay, I can’t hear you very well, so. My name is June Burrell, and my husband and I live at 659 West Mount Crescent.

I thought hard about what I would say today because I came last time. Our local neighborhood has made it very clear that the building is out of place for this area, and six stories with 95 units is too large for a 0.5 of a hectare. We presented a petition with 122 signatures. The feeling in the neighborhood is unanimous.

Let’s begin with these measurements. When reviewing the dimensions on the document for this project, 2.1 hectares given as the area is not correct by over four times. We used the two measurements given to try and reach the area of the site, and the result was 0.36 hectares, not 2.1. We contacted the city, and we’re told the site has four unique side lengths, and we’re referred to the site map.

We located the four measurements, and using the correct formula, we calculated the correct number of hectares, 3.45 of a hectare, or 1.1 acres, not 2.1 hectares, but only two measurements were in the material. Having the incorrect number of hectares in the application is misleading, and by appearing to be four times larger than reality, may play in favor of the developer as they are attempting to change the site to medium density and increase the density to 215 units per hectare. Looking at the London plan, we found that this site presently is low density with a maximum allowable of 75 units per hectare, and an absolute maximum of 750. The zoning choice selected by the developer allows them to increase the site to medium density, and the 215 units are allowed if the committee agrees.

We all understand that we are looking at intensification, but we think the owners should be on the developer to prove that this building is a good fit for our neighborhood. This has not been done. Another form of building on this site, like townhouses or one or two floor condominiums, will be a much more appropriate use for the site, just as the developers further west on commissioners figured out, less traffic, less problems. And what would this medium density precedent do to all the other single family owned properties in the area?

In reading the London plan, we found many instances where it refers to intensification being appropriate for the neighborhood, being a good fit, being sensitive to a neighborhood, in at least 10 places. It also covers protection of privacy and respecting neighborhoods. These protections are there for a reason, and we’re asking that they not be totally ignored in this situation, or perhaps they’re just empty words. Let’s think what we’re losing if this is approved.

We lose our right to privacy. As I stop at traffic lights, I count up six floors, and I see how huge this building will be. We lose a lot of green space and bird and wildlife habitat. We lose our right to quiet enjoyment of our properties.

We lose our safety from all the additional traffic and park cars. I don’t see how introducing 150 plus vehicles, plus servicing trucks into a quiet neighborhood, can be seen as okay. The committee even asked for this to be investigated last time, but no new work has been done, just to say the traffic department says it’s okay. We could also lose the mature trees on the south and west side of the lot.

I don’t have faith that these trees will be saved. We lose the peace that our quiet traffic calm neighborhood has given us. It will be like a downtown street. On the other side, what do we get?

We get an oversized building in our neighborhood and a driveway facing our street. We get a higher risk of flooding if there’s ever a big storm with the site being almost completely hard surface. We get a large amount of traffic with the related noise and danger. We can’t see any real benefit for the neighborhood from this large building, and it really is too large for the site.

If you saw the site, you would instinctively know that. Anything can look okay on paper. The three other projects in progress very close to this site are proposing townhouses, other density of 60, 60 and 43 units per hectare. On the 634 commissioners project, the developer even voluntarily lowered the hype from three floors to two.

30 seconds. Based on neighborhood feedback. A neighbor told me about an application in a very similar situation in the midst of single family homes on Baselimer of West and Byron. It was a bit smaller.

Four stories, 38 units on four lots, not two. Neighbors objected and the application was rejected by a planning committee. The reason given quote, the residential intensification has not demonstrated to fit the surrounding neighborhood and has not demonstrated that it would protect the health and safety of residents. Your time has reached, thank you.

This is exactly how we feel about this application and we would hope we can get the same consideration as this parallel project. Thank you. Any other persons in the gallery would like to speak to the committee? Please go ahead, sir.

You have five minutes and please state your name. Thank you. I’m Darcy McLeod, I live at 661 West Mount Crescent. Now, the last time I was here, I had asked a question about the main entrance to this building is on West Mount Crescent.

The driveway in and out of their parking area is going on to West Mount Crescent. Why does this not have a West Mount Crescent address? Because the property that they bought on the corner there was 591 West Mount Crescent. They keep referring to this as 608 commissioners.

Well, there’s nothing going out to commissioners from this building. They have a side view against commissioners, that is it. The main entrance is on West Mount, the driveways on West Mount, and it’s going to affect us with all the traffic coming in and out of that building is going to go either way on West Mount Crescent. Now, I have eight grandkids that constantly ride their bikes up and down West Mount Crescent.

And I don’t want to have to be so worried to not let them, you know, go and play like they normally do because of the added traffic concerns. Thank you. Thank you, sir, any other persons that would like to address the committee in the gallery. Please go ahead, sir, you have five minutes and state your name.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. My name is Blair Petzky. I’m a resident of the neighborhood on Jamaica Street.

I have four main points. I just want to present to the committee and thank you all for your time tonight. The first issue is similar to what was just mentioned about the address. The development is defined as fronting on commissioners.

So the word fronting is very important in the London plan and that unlocks a certain set of development conditions or approvals, et cetera. So I would suggest if this development is truly fronting on commissioners and access to development should be from commissioners as well. Instead, what we have is access from West Mount Crescent, a neighborhood street. And so I would suggest if that’s going to be the access and the London plan should apply in terms of a frontage on a neighborhood crescent and a 95 unit apartment building does not fit into that context.

Secondly, with respect to access to the building, there’s an argument from the planning staff and the developer that the additional cross traffic on commissioners needs to be avoided. So turning left into the building in their words is not a good idea. However, what they’re suggesting is turning left into the adjoining neighborhood street is just fine. It’s the same number of cars that are turning left across commissioners road.

You still have the same issues and conflict caused by this 95 unit building. Thirdly, the London plan imposes a criteria for development to be a good fit and not undermine the character of the street. That is a very specific condition of the London plan. In this case, we’re talking about West Mount Crescent being the character of the street.

This is a neighborhood with single family dwellings. There’s many other developments actually planned for the area as well, none of them like a 95 unit apartment building. So character of the street, a 95 unit building, six stories high, does not fit with single dwelling neighborhood. Even the plan standard, if one accepts this building fronting onto commissioners, it even says the plan standard is a four story unit.

Even if you want to accept this as a commissioner’s address. Fourth point, there have been opinions rendered on traffic and traffic impact. There’s been no study undertaken as the neighborhood has requested. We should also consider planned volumes given the other development in the neighborhood.

Other townhouse complexes are being proposed, other developments, planned traffic will increase in addition to what’s being proposed from this building. A traffic study is required to look into the future and see what is needed. Other impacts, of course, have been discussed more home deliveries, other development. Cut through traffic in the neighborhood is a significant concern.

There are no sidewalks in this neighborhood. There’s no traffic calming. We have increased vehicles. We’ll have increased pedestrians.

It’s not a very safe mix. 30 seconds. Suggested this be considered. So, I suggest the special amendment be postponed until this full review can take place.

And I suggest that this development be reconsidered with access from commissioner’s road in order to fulfill the requirements for an infill. The six story unit does not fit. And I suggest at least the plan standard and a frontage on commissioners be the way to go. Thank you.

Any other person that would like to address the committee from the gallery? Go ahead, ma’am. You have five minutes and please state your name. My name is Hedyor Lowski.

I reside at 669 West Mount Crescent. I didn’t come to the previous meeting. One I forgot, I’ll blame it on age. I’ve been on this street for 23 years, chosen specifically for the quietness and the character of that street.

With this six story building, which is totally unacceptable, the traffic will be horrendous on our quiet street. Paying taxes for, I’m a lifelong Londoner as well, is totally unacceptable for our voice not to be heard. Listening to what the other residents did on Upper Queens, that is unacceptable. They all came out to express their opinion and it fell on deaf ears on all of your consulars, unacceptable.

And I’m just adding my two cents worth that I’m totally against the six story building. Totally against it. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other speakers in the gallery tonight? Lisa, go ahead, you have five minutes and state your name, thank you. I’ll be brief. My name is Alan Burrell.

I live at 659 West Mount Crescent. I never heard, I never was at, I’ve called Turex at 615 West Mount Crescent, wanted to attend this meeting, but they are out of the country. They ask me to tell you that they certainly cause this development. I agree with everything else that’s being said.

Thank you, sir. Any others in the gallery? I’d like to address the committee. Mr.

Campbell, over there. I’ll go to the clerk in the committee room. Please first speaker in the committee room. Please state your name, you have five minutes.

Yeah, please go ahead, sir. Please state your name, you have five minutes. Light wasn’t done, my name is Robert Campbell. I’ve lived at 675 West Mount Crescent for 16 years.

Been with the intensification issue. The planning staff state, after a further review of the intensity of the proposed development, staff are still satisfied. The proposed intensity and scale is appropriate and conformity with the London plan. I disagree with that.

The current density of the neighborhood average is about 10 units per hectare. The subject site is in the area where the London plan directs and supports residential intensification and redevelopment. Fair enough, we don’t take issue with that. Where the neighborhood place type, the London plan permits low rise apartments which front on a civic boulevard.

Didn’t find a definition of low rise in the London plan but building definitions for Canada and define low rise apartments as two to three floors and mid rises four to nine. By that definition, the proposed apartment would be a mid rise one. Table 11 in the London plan indicates that the minimum number of stories which may be allowed in the neighborhood’s type along a civic boulevard, the standard max is nine as four, the upper max is six. Increases in the building height above the standard which is four may be permitted where the resulting intensity and form of the proposed development represents good planning within its context.

I’ve not seen anything which indicates that six stories versus four stories serves any purpose other than to increase the opponent’s return on investment. What it does do is violate the spirit and intent of the London plan’s intensification. The London plan repeatedly states that sensitivity should be applied examples. Zoning will be applied to ensure that intensity of development that is appropriate to the neighborhood context, utilizing regulations for such things as height density.

Intensification will respect existing neighborhood character. A planning and design report just described in the tools part of this plan, shall be submitted for all intensification proposals. The report will clearly demonstrate that the proposed intensification project is sensitive to compatible with and fit within the existing and planned neighborhood. Compatibility and fit from a form perspective will be evaluated based on such matters as mass appropriate to the scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

With respect to massing, note that the volume of the proposed apartment building is 32 times the volume of the nearest house at 615 West Mass. Several things have been done to try to decrease the impression of massiveness, such as step backs, but it’s still putting lipstick on a peg. It’s still a peg. The elephant is still in the room.

As Councillor Van Meerberg has put it, it is just too big. In summary, the planners claim that the project is sensitive to and a good fit with existing neighborhoods. If that were so, why has there been almost universal opposition to the neighbors, by the neighbors? A six-story approval would, in my opinion, be appealable.

A four-story approval might be appealable. A three-story approval would be within London plan’s current criteria. A two-story approval would keep the project within the current zoning. Well, still bringing in a high degree of intensification.

30 seconds. - 10 units per hectare, up to 72 units per hectare. How am I doing for time? You’re pretty much done, so please wrap it up.

Okay, I’ll let you go with that. Thank you. May I have the next speaker in the committee room, please? You have five minutes, sir.

Please state your name and go ahead, thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Rudy, the pop, and I live at 612 Jamaica Street, which is directly south of the proposed development. My wife and I have lived there.

Well, I’m not actually true. It’s been in her family for, well, since 1955. Anyway, I’ll be sure that I’ve had an opportunity to speak at a prior meeting, but there’s one thing I wanna make sure the committee’s aware of, you know, this property, 608 commissioners, which is originally purchased in the beginning, just the single property, as we were told earlier, but later on, the developer decided that he needed more property and was able to push and persuade the neighbor into leaving and bought the property. The reason that that person bought that property is too full, double the size, but get a 608 commissioner’s address, not a West Mount Crescent address, because the house that they purchased was 591 West Mount Crescent.

Now, I do believe that the 200 and change units per hectaker is an artery number. I could be wrong on that one, please correct me if I am later. But if that’s true, there’s a little bit of method in the madness here, but it truly is, it truly is a West Mount Crescent property fronting on Commissioner’s Road. That’s one point I wanted to make, and everything else has been covered.

The other thing is, if the committee does proceed with this, and it’s possible, then at a minimum, maybe West Mount Crescent, actually, it splits into a Y once you get a little bit further south and start to get into South Division. I believe the road should be blocked there. If the road is blocked there, that means that there will be no traffic entering the South Division. There’ll be no problem with children in the streets, there’ll be no problem with cars parking on the streets.

There really will be no problems with the community, because it will at least appear to be on Commissioner’s Road. That being said, the objectives of that are going to be, well, how are people going to get home? How are they going to get to work? Well, currently there’s four ways to get in to our local South Division, West Mount Crescent and Jamaica Street, there’s four ways.

That will reduce it to three, I think, that’s plenty. I don’t use that entrance that much anyway, because it’s too busy coming out of Commissioner’s Road, and it’s going to get a lot busier. That’s all I have to say, everything else has been covered. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any other persons that wish to address the committee from the committee room? Clerk, are there, is there anyone online? Agnes Williams.

I see a gentleman in the committee room, I’ll go to you first, sir. You have five minutes, please state your name. Thank you, I will be sure. My name is Paul Gowan, I live at 599 Rosecliff Terrace, which is directly opposite the proposed development.

And I’ll be sure as well, just saying that I, and many of my neighbors on Rosecliff are very much opposed to this proposal. It’s not appropriate, and as we see in the London plan, for its height, the neighborhood, there are many townhouses that are nearby, of course, single lot homes, but to put a six story on this lot, or the two lots, but it does not conform with, in any way, shape or form to the neighborhood. So I ask that this be rejected, or at least modified to something that would be of a lower height for our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I understand we have Ms. Williams online. Please go ahead, ma’am.

You have five minutes. Ms. Williams, if you’re online, please unmute. Go to the clerk.

Okay, I will move to Ms. Bartum, I believe, is online. You have five minutes, please go ahead. Hi, my name’s Annie.

Everything that’s been said already has kind of been covered. I just wanted to hop on here quickly and say some things. I live at 651 Commissioners Road West, and myself and the rest of the people that live in this house, my family, we’re all opposed to this building plan. There is a development that’s going to occur directly across from us, literally right across the street from us.

That’s going to be townhouses, and then also repurposing the homes that’s already there into separate units. That seems like something that’s really in keeping with the area in the neighborhood, and seems like deferential to the place that we live, and not like an overreach. This proposal, however, that we’re discussing at the moment, just seems like obscene, basically, for what it is. The neighborhood will not support a building of that size.

You just have to take a walk outside my house and walk down the street and look around. It just would not be appropriate at all. Yeah, that’s all I really wanted to say, and just voice my disapproval basically for the proposal. It just seems like ridiculous that a building of this size will be planned for that area.

That’s all. Thank you, ma’am. I’ll ask the clerk if there are any others online they’re waiting to speak. Through the chair, there’s no one else on Zoom.

Thank you. Last call for our committee room. If there’s anybody that would like to address the committee, now’s your chance. I see no one getting up to go to the mic, so I will look for a mover to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Close in the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Though we had one technical question raised by Councillor Van Mirberg and that was also raised by the public, but it was answered by staff on the actual dimensions of the site. So I will not go to staff on that. Of course, other committee members are welcome to revisit.

We had referred this back due to, for consideration of the exit point, whether it was on commissioners or West Mount Crescent. So I’d just like to go to staff to comment on that. Staff came back and said that they were satisfied that the appropriate entranceway would be on West Mount Crescent, so I’d like a comment on that, please. Through you, Mr.

Chair. Yes, with the extra review on the transportation component and the access on this development, transportation did work with us. Sorry, I’m just looking at this, work with us, and we reviewed it again. And they will not support access on commissioners.

They will only support it off of West Mount. Thank you. And maybe they can speak further if you have any more in depth transportation comments. I will leave it to committee members.

They want to ask further on that. So I’ll go to the committee now and for any questions or comments, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, just following up on the referral back and read the report, I understand that staff are not recommending an access point. But I do have a question through you, Mr.

Chair, given the comments that we heard this evening from the public as it relates to the address. Why is just road not being used as the address? And then the second question is around the possibility. I think it’s West Mount Crescent as it goes to Jamaica, which is under here, can that be blocked off in any way to prevent access going into the neighborhood?

Thank you. I’ll go to staff on that. Through you, Mr. Chair, I’m going to refer to transportation on that if it can be blocked.

But just talking about the address, just to give the committee some information, the legal frontage is commissioners and the legal frontage is always the shorter of the dimension. So we do look at that. So we have determined that the legal frontage is commissioners for this property. I should also note that the London Plan Points commissioners wrote as the higher order street for this property and development.

So that will answer the question with regards to why we are looking at commissioners for our policies. I will direct the address change to the applicant as he can provide that information. And then I again, we’ll direct the blocking the street to transportation. Okay, I’ll go to the applicant to address that.

And then I’ll come back to staff for further traffic consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chair and through you. And I heard the comments as well about the address.

Typically when we have multiple properties, the city sometimes will let us sign a new address. So we haven’t gone to that stage yet. Unfortunately, we did continue to use a six to eight commissioners ‘cause that was how the application was originally applied for and we just didn’t add the West Mount Crescent address. But as Ms.

Riley pointed out, the legal frontage of the property is commissioners wrote based on the definition of the by-law for corner lot. So to us, I don’t think it matters whether it’s a commissioners or a West Mount Crescent address. I think it doesn’t change the effect of the development. I think we’ve heard from staff that it still applies.

The policy still applies as we’ve looked at them. But I think again, this property has a legal frontage on commissioners and that’s how we’ve structured our application. Thank you. Thank you and I’ll go back to staff now for questions regarding blockage of access points, et cetera.

I can speak to that. It’s sort of ready here from transportation. Hopefully I’m interpreting the question correctly and that the question of blocking traffic from going south was just in regards to this site in particular. In some cases, we can restrict certain movements.

Particularly it’s often usually restricting a left out or left in and or restricting a site to just a right and right out. In this case, based on where the access is located being on the West side of the road, you’d have to actually restrict a right out in order to make it so people come from the site could not go southbound on West Mount Crescent, but it’s really not feasible to restrict a right out if it was on the other side of the road. And I know this has happened in other spots where there’s been a restriction on the left out. You could do that, but yeah, just with the, where the site’s situated, it’s not feasible to do that.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that. But the question was around and it’s just following up on a resident’s comment about blocking West Mount Crescent as it goes to Jamaica. I just want to make sure if that’s feasible or not.

I’m going to staff on that question. Through you, Chair, thanks for the clarification on the question. I think you’d have to go through a full E.A. If you were actually going to dead down West Mount Crescent there and I believe I’d have to measure it, but I think it might be longer than the minimum 90 meters for a deadhead in which case you typically need like a turnaround, like a crescent, which would not fit in with the current city right away there.

Councillor Hopkins. Any other questions or comments for staff or motion? Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair and through you, I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. I said this was before us in the last time. I was concerned about the entrance. We’ve heard and that was the purpose of the referral.

We’ve heard back from staff that that’s not supportable. I am supportive of the density and just like I said on the last application, infill has to happen in neighborhoods across the city. This is right at the corner of Commissioner’s Road and I think with the transit service there, with the access to other, easy access to other parts of the city that this is the right fit. So I’m going to support this.

And Councillor Hillier, I apologize. I missed your hand up, but I’ll look for a seconder and then I will go to Councillor Hillier for a comment. Councillor Frank. So we have a motion that’s been moved and second and I’ll go to Councillor Hillier.

Yes, thank you. One of the reasons we’re meeting for this proposal is to grant the special provisions that would allow maximum height and maximum density. Now, under the London plan, it’s not just our job to find maximum height and density, but it’s also to find a just fit. Now, I don’t feel a six story is a just fit here.

Personally, personally, I feel a four story would be more in effect. And when I look at the size of the lot, I personally come up with a .4 of a hectare and I’m looking at the density and going, okay, that should be around about 80 units. So I will not be supporting us. I personally feel six stories is too much and I don’t feel we should be looking at just getting the maximum intensity for the developer and going for the what fits.

Thank you. - Thank you. Councillor Van Meerberg. Thank you, Chair.

I think if anybody knows this particular area, the corner of West Mount Crescent and commissioners. Now, we hear the word commissioners and right away, we think of certain structures of commissioners where it’s a nice, wide four lane arterial with plenty of room, plenty of space. This stretch of commissioners is a very narrow two lane and it is surrounded in this particular area, these neighborhoods with single family homes. I think Councillor Hillier summed it up well.

It’s very peaceful, almost pastoral type area. And then all of a sudden, we’re gonna plunk a six story, 95 unit building on one acre. Think of it, a one acre lot. I think most of us can envisage and let’s not get lost in the hectare acre.

This is an acre and as has been described, that’s less than half a hectare. An acre is not a lot of property to work with and we’re gonna put 95 homes on there. This, the previous application we heard, I think it was 10 on a three quarter, I believe, acre lot. This dwarfs it in comparison in an area where it absolutely does not fit.

It’s too big a wall. It is fundamentally too big, too high and too dense. It’s like putting a wall in the middle of these beautiful homes where many of the residents have lived for decades, working so hard on a daily basis to improve their area. For decades, they’ve been paying taxes into our great city, contributing to its prosperity and they will continue to do so.

If we’re gonna make intensification work, we’ve got to work with residents. We can’t just, you know, pretend we’re listening in rubber stamp things, we’ve got to work with them. Step by step, if it means we have to find some common ground and we have to put water in the wine of, you know, what I would call extreme goals, then we need to do so. This isn’t gonna work.

If all we do is just make a lot of angry residents, a lot of angry taxpayers, again, who have worked so hard and then we just shove a new development down their throats without taking their very well-based concerns into account. So I would suggest that this particular application, this particular proposal, and that it’s just that, a proposal, be turned down and it come back, be re-examined and come back in a different form because in its current format, it just does not work and it’s disrespectful to the residents. It’s disrespectful to taxpayers in the area. And so I would say let’s send it back, take another look.

I think Councillor Hillier was right. If there’s some way to look at bringing it lower, four stories certainly works better than the six. We only have to look at that four-story building that was built on Wonderland Road near Teeple Terrace, which had that unfortunate accident. But when you look at the size of that, that’s only four stories.

I think most of us have driven past it. It’s a big building. Think of that on the corner of this quiet little present corner. So again, I basically implore you to not support this application in its current form.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Preck. Thank you. And I seconded into this motion. And I appreciate Deputy Mayor Lewis moving the motion again similarly for the reasons of the previous applicant.

But to me again, every unit that we do that’s in fill is a unit we don’t have on the edge of the city, a single family home increasing traffic congestion, tax costs, emissions. So again, I will be supporting this given that I seconded it. But I do think it’s a good location. Again, it’s near transit.

It’s near shopping centers. It’s walkable. And I do think we have listened to the community. We are voting against it.

Well, I mean, I am, sorry. But I think we have listened to it. We referred back to staff. They did more work.

The consultant clearly has done some community engagement. Again, it doesn’t sound like it’s meeting the needs of the residents specifically, immediately in the approximate area. But it is meeting the targets that we have for a housing crisis and our climate crisis. Again, we desperately need density across the city.

Every neighborhood is going to be impacted and every neighborhood is going to have to play a role in our housing crisis. And that includes welcoming in fill like this project. So again, I’ll be supporting this application for those reasons. And I think the other thing I did want to highlight that I haven’t really highlighted in the last couple, is this mentality that we think that we’re going to continue with the same amount of car usage that we always have.

And therefore, we need maximum amounts of parking and maximum amounts of road space. And roads are only going to continue to widen. I ran because I don’t want roads to widen. I want us to keep investing in transit.

I want us to keep investing in bike infrastructure. And I believe that we are going to see a reduction in cars. And if we don’t, we’re going to have huge impacts of the climate crisis. And I don’t know, again, why we made a climate emergency action plan.

If we expect car usage to go up, it’s the exact opposite of a climate emergency and the exact opposite of a climate emergency action plan. So again, I don’t believe this mentality that we’re going to see more and more and more cars. Because if we do, it’s going to go against most of the work that we’ve been doing with the London Plan and our climate plan. So I personally only have one car for two adult household.

Most of my friends don’t have a car. Or if they do, they have one for two people. And maybe that’s just the next generation is going to be seeing a reduction in car usage. So that all being said, I’m not too concerned about the transit transportation issues if we are seriously investing in transit and cycling.

So thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to everyone for their comments and for the public for coming out. I have been back and forth on this one a number of times. I’m glad we referred it back because we really needed to understand the mechanics of how this neighborhood moves around. I agree with the Ward Councillor that there are a number of applications that we’ve already approved.

And I can probably see another one coming. When you look along this commissioner’s road from Notting Hill all the way almost to Wonderland, there’s a lot of change going on here. There’s lots. And I hear what Councillor Hill here is saying about the height.

But the reality is there’s affordable housing, five units being put in here. There’s underground parking. It is really something that the applicant is doing the work that is needed to create more units in this area, around a transit area. I was really disappointed to see that there’s no opportunity not to have the access on commissioners.

And I can see that because we’ve already approved a number of applications that have access commissioners. So we’re just kind of creating a lot of challenges there. But I would encourage the applicant when it comes to that access to allow the 212 units per hectare that we’re allowing here is a lot of density. There’s a lot going on in this intersection.

I would love to see it five. The reality of that is not going to happen. So I would be supporting this, again, encouraging the applicant to really pay attention to that access and not to encourage the cut-through traffic because I know it exists. It exists further down on Crampwick Road.

It’s why there’s lots of speed bumps happening in West Mount because people do use that this neighborhood is cut-through traffic area and anything that we can do to encourage the access going back onto Commissioner’s Road right not too far from Wonderland would be something that I would encourage. I appreciate the step-backs that the applicant has done here with this intensity. They have created a bit of stepping back so it doesn’t look so intense. I think I appreciate that.

But I will be supporting this development. It just seems that it has many things going for it when it comes to the affordable housing, the transit areas and opportunities to hopefully encourage more ridership on our transit. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And through you, I guess the comments that Councillor Frank and I are sharing are a good example of how we don’t have to agree on everything but we can find consensus. I actually agree with Councillor Frank about the road widening for the most part. I think in some locations that’s going to have to happen.

I’m less convinced that the car is going away. I think it’s becoming electric. I watch some young people put on skates and play hockey a few times a week. And one of their main saving goals right now is to buy a car, to have their freedom from their parents and to not be dependent on a transit system.

So I think there’s a mix out there of thoughts on that. But what I really want to implore colleagues to think about— and it’s on this application— but it applies to the previous application. And it applies to many applications that we’ve seen at this committee before. And we’ll see you again.

The last application— and if I misquoted staff, it’s because of my own sloppy handwriting. Not there in accurate numbers, but I believe it was mentioned that this was approximately 90 meters from the previous application was approximately 90 meters from Commissioner’s Road. This one is right on Commissioner’s Road, one block from Wonderland Road. Wonderland Road is one of the busiest, most important arteries in the city.

So if we’re not willing to do intensification, one block from Wonderland Road, on another arterial road like Commissioners. If we’re not prepared to do intensification on Upper Queen’s, which is another collector road, just a few meters away from Commissioners, then we really have to ask ourselves, where are we going to do intensification? And to me, the answer is that it’s got to be shared. It’s got to be shared around the city.

And the best places for these things to happen are within walking distance of transit service, within walking distance of neighborhood amenities, and within neighborhoods where there’s a little bit more room, and we’ve got a little bit more room here. I appreciate the concern, and we heard from our staff that the number in the report was an error, and those things happen from time to time when reports come forward, and that the actual calculation on the density was correct. So I’m satisfied with that. I said last time that my concern was about the entrance and access that way, not the density, and I’m sticking by that tonight.

But I really encourage colleagues, both on this committee and on council as a whole, to take an honest minute or two to reflect on, if not here, then where? Because to me, a block from Wonderland Road on another arterial, that’s exactly where we should be looking. So I’m going to be supporting this, and I hope the colleagues will as well. Thank you, Councilor Vamierberg.

I’ve got to reiterate, nobody in this neighborhood is against intensification. In fact, intensification is happening all through this neighborhood. There are stacked townhouse developments that have been approved, just steps away from where this lot is. And by and large, the neighborhood is fine with that.

So this isn’t about, are we against intensification? It’s not about nimbeism. It’s about the size, scope, and degree of the intensification we’re talking about. We’re looking at 9.5 times more homes than we saw in the previous application where it was only 10.

Again, 95 homes on a one-acre lot. It’s not on Wonderland Road. It’s right where Rosecliff meets Old Westmount. This area is just not set up.

Tef have a six-story, 95-unit building stuck right in the middle of it. It’s just that simple. The people have made it very clear. They’ve signed petitions.

I went door to door to each one of these homes. I didn’t find one neighbor in support of this particular proposal. Again, it’s not about intensification. It’s the degree of it.

Like, why stop at 95? Why not make it 190? Like, you’ve got to employ a little bit of logic, a little bit of reasoning before we just go off and put up something of this magnitude. Any other comments before I call the vote?

So we have a motion on the floor. It’s been seconded. I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries 4-1.

Committee. In hindsight, I wish I had called a break earlier. I apologize for that. Things just kind of open.

We would sail through, but we haven’t. We have one item left. My understanding, there are two folks that would like to address a committee that we know of. So I’m in committee’s hands if we want to take a short break.

We can’t come back or we can just keep on going. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, if I can request a 10-minute break or just a pause. Just hand his up vote on that if that’s good.

OK, we’ll take a 10-minute break. Let’s get back here at 7.30. They didn’t vote, yes. Did they don’t?

They don’t think so. We don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think so.

I don’t think so. I don’t think so. We don’t think so. I don’t think so.

I don’t think so. I don’t think so. Councillor Hill here. Are you present?

OK. We’re past 7.30. We’re back. Call the committee back to order.

We are in 3.6, the public participation meeting, for 7.23, Lauren Avenue. We look for a motion to open the PPM, Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries 5-0. Any technical questions for staff and the committee members? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant. The applicant is here.

Please state your name and you have five minutes. Can we get to them, Mike? Please go ahead. My name is George Devlute and I am the GM of construction for Habitat for Humanity.

Kyle Caine from Strict Baldwin, Illinois is also on the call and I’ll ask him to just address anything technical that I may have missed. Habitat for Humanity purchased the land from the City of London and we’re following the old East Village’s community concept plan and design for this property. Each home, each single family home, there will be 12 of them will have a heritage designation so we’ll go through the heritage committee to make sure the facades meet the standard in the neighborhood. The houses will be all affordable housing through Habitat’s affordable home ownership model and each home as designated in the old East Village community’s plan will have the opportunity to have an additional rental unit within the building.

So those are the comments that I needed to make on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and I’ll just turn it over to Kyle Caine who I believe is virtually on the call. If he can address anything technical that I may have missed. Please go ahead. Hello, can you guys hear me?

Yes we can. Perfect. Yes, George. You did a great job.

As he said, we’ve kind of gone through. We’ve tried to make these lots more spacious than probably what you see nowadays. We have tried to keep the community in mind allowing for easements and such into the rear yards of some of the properties that we back on to mainly behind lots of 11 and possibly 10. But if we don’t have any technical questions at the moment, I can speak to those afterwards.

Jonah Hill from our offices also with us virtually and he’s our transportation engineer. Thank you. Any questions from committee members, Councillor Frank. Thank you.

And through the chair, I was just wondering about the road. So I was reading a bunch of the comments and I couldn’t really tell if it was going to be two directions, one direction, if there was going to be dead end somewhere. So I was just hoping maybe to walk us through a bit of the direction for the road. I’ll start with staff on that one and the staff and more comfortable going to the applicant.

Let me know. Good evening chair. Through you, this is Allison Curtis on behalf of planning and development. So the recommendation of the TIA is for partial one way operation southbound.

That’s what they’ve called it. So in essence, there’s two way traffic on only a portion of the road. Traffic can ingress and egress from Queens Place at Lauren Avenue, but they can only exit on the Queens Place traffic on sorry, onto Queens Avenue traffic cannot enter onto Queens Place from Queens Avenue. If you refer to page 480 of the report, we have an outline visual of each of the different models that were examined and the partial one way operation is the third on that page.

Thank you, sorry to cut you off prematurely there, Councillor Frank. And this is, I don’t know if it’s technical, but I was wondering if a higher density had been looked at and if it had, why do we choose somewhat of a lower density for this project? Go to staff. So there was extensive community engagement prior to the RFP being issued to look at what would be an ideal form of development from their perspective for those lands.

And the preferred development form was single detached residential. And as it is an interior site, single detached was considered as an appropriate form development for those lands. Councillor, any other technical questions? Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, just following up on the road questions to staff about, I understand that the road is a bit narrower and just want to understand a little bit more about if there are sidewalks, landscaping, lights. That’s my first question. Go to staff. Yes.

So the existing portion of Queens Place is very narrow where it connects with Queens Avenue. It’s currently fit for one car to enter exit at one point. But the extension of Queens Place would be for two lanes. So it would be wider than the existing narrow portion of Queens Place right at Queens Avenue.

The extension will include boulevards, as is set out in the conservation heritage, heritage conservation district plan and light standards, I believe, will also be included in the boulevards. Councillor. Thank you, and just following up on the relocation of the hydro poles. Any concerns there?

Go to staff. That’s something we’re still investigating. There are some potentials that we’re looking at, but we don’t have any firm answers at the time in terms of relocating those poles. It appears that a number of services are using them.

They are a bell Canada poles, but it appears that there’s other telecommunication services, and the poles are also being used as light standards. So that’s something we’re investigating further. Councillor. Any other questions from committee members technical?

Okay, I’ll go to the public now, remind you that you have five minutes, and please state your name. I’ll go to the clerk to see who is online. I apologize, sir. We have a gentleman here in the gallery, I’ll let you go first.

Please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Frank Feliche, and I’m a resident of the Old East Village. I’ve also been working with the Lauren Avenue Park Development Committee since before 2016 when our school closed.

So we feel that in terms of this development and the park that’s in where the school used to be, that this is a kind of a good fit to the loss, a kind of a second price to the loss of our school. We’ve been working diligently with the City of London. There’s been a lot of community consultations over a number of years now. And so I’m here to support this development.

I think it’s going to be a good addition to the Old East Village, given that there’s going to be a nod to the Heritage Conservation District, the houses should conform in that fashion. Since we first started to look at this particular development, we have had the issue of intensification has come up, and with the addition of the rental units, the option of having the addition of rental unit is kind of something that’s been added on in spirit of intensification. But yes, I think this is a good development, and I think it’s going to be a good addition to the Old East Village. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I will go to you, ma’am, in the gallery. Please state your name. You have five minutes.

Thank you. My name is Sarah Merritt. I’m also a resident of the Old East Village, and I’m a member of the Learn Part Redevelopment Committee. I think what you’re seeing tonight in terms of proposal for the housing development is a really wonderful example of how community and the municipality and the developer, but primarily to this point, community and municipality, have worked together to hack out a plan that would work for the neighbourhood and also ensure that people that we could have more affordable home ownership in our community.

Originally, when the housing was being proposed, what is now being offered as rental units were originally being offered as garages, those people who attended the community meetings, and we had, with the park, design shirts and housing meetings, we had about five meetings that were very, very well attended. People in the community endorsed the notion of turning what was supposed to be garages into rental units, a great model for ensuring that people who are living in the housing could, excuse me, have additional income that would allow them to pay their mortgages and also provide more rental units for the area. We still have some issues in terms of design detail that we want to work out with the developer. We’re absolutely delighted to see that the housing is now facing the street.

We hacked out all of the issues around traffic, and so I’m here also to support what is being proposed and to see that we look forward to working more closely as a committee and as a community with the developer when we get into more specific aspects of detail design. Thank you. Thank you, ma’am. I’ll go to the clerk now.

I don’t believe there’s no one else in the gallery, so I’ll go to the clerk to see if there’s someone in the committee room back to speak to us. Ellen? Yes. Can you hear me?

Please go ahead. You have five minutes. Hi. Yeah, I’ll be quick.

I just want to say I own a property on this street, the small street of Queen’s Place. I’m in support of the development. I think it’ll help to address the housing availability, the cost of rent rising for renters, the lack of rental units available across the city, and especially in the core of the city. So by adding 12 new properties, I think it’ll give people some new options for places to live while making use of a space that’s currently not really bring much value to the neighborhood otherwise.

So just wanted to say thank you to the municipality for the development and to the developers at Habitat as well. And I thought I’d briefly mention as well that I’d like to mention that I’ve been here for the last few hours through the other meetings, and I saw the general overwhelming opposition from the public to the other proposals in comparison to what we’re seeing here in old East. I think we probably all love to see more of this type of thoughtful intensification over the coming years, and maybe old East will be kept in mind for this type of thing. Thank you very much for your comments.

The clerk has informed me there’s no others that are looking to speak. I’ll just wait for a second or two to make sure. Okay, seeing that we’ve come to the end of speakers, I’ll look for a motion from the committee to close the PPM. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote. The motion carries. 5-0. I’ll go to committee now for comments, questions, motions.

Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I’d like to move the motion. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Frank, and Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead.

Yeah, this is a good news story. I really appreciate the work that’s been done in the community, and you know, I still remember the beginning of the conversation seven, eight years ago about what we were going to do with Lauren Park School, and it’s really kind of neat for me to be here to see what’s been going on with the development in the area, and for me, the affordable housing, the rental units, I think this is really such a positive development in the core, and I really appreciate the fact that it’s been true to the old East Village Community Development Plan, I think that is also being very important, so thank you. Other comments or questions from the committee members? Seeing none, I’d like to comment if the committee will allow.

This is Echo, Councillor Hopkins, sentiments here. Habitat for Humanity is a terrific organization. They bring a true sense of ownership in every sense of the word to those folks that not only own those homes, but participate in building future homes. I’ve had the opportunity to work on some projects with Habitat, and despite my terrible lack of carpentry skills, I was able to do some of the more mundane jobs fit with my skill level, and I encourage the folks to reach out to Habitat.

There’s nothing more rewarding than participating in that, and this is, I know, the community probably didn’t, weren’t too pleased to see their school goal, but I think, as was mentioned tonight, by those that live there, it’s a good consolation prize, I guess, second place prize, and I hope that it’ll become a first place prize once that’s done, so well done. And now we have a motion that’s been moved and seconded, and I will call the vote. And the vote, the motion carries 5-0.