February 21, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 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 Consent Items 2.1 to 2.7 and 2.9 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Building Division Monthly Report - November 2022

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Building Division Monthly Report - November 2022

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the revised Building Division Monthly report for November 2022 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

2.2   Building Division Monthly Report - December 2022

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Building Division Monthly Report - December 2022

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Building Division Monthly report for December 2022 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

2.3   3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-02-08 CACP Report 3

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on February 8, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-A02)

Motion Passed

2.4   3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road - Talbot Village Subdivision Phase 7 - Special Provisions (39T-21502_7)

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road - Talbot Village Phase 7 - (39T-21502)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Topping Brothers Land Corp./Topping Family Farm Inc., for the subdivision of land over CON ETR E PT LOT 77, situated south of Southdale Road West and west of Bostwick Road, municipally known as 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road:

a)    the Special Provisions, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Topping Brothers Land Corp./Topping Family Farm Inc., for the Talbot Village Subdivision, Phase 7 (39T-21502_7) appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED;

b)    the Applicant BE ADVISED that Development Finance has summarized the claims and revenues appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023, as Appendix “B”;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023, as Appendix “C”; and,

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.  (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

2.5   1602 Sunningdale Road West - Three Year Extension and Redline Revisions (39T-11503)

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 1602 Sunningdale Road West - Three Year Extension and Redline Revisions (39T-11503)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc., for the property located at 1602 Sunningdale Road West, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports granting a three (3) year extension of the draft plan of subdivision, submitted by Foxwood Developments (London) Inc. (File No. 39T-11503) prepared by Stantec Consulting Inc., certified David Bianchi, OLS (dated November 8, 2011), as redline revised which shows 16 low density residential blocks (reduced from 18 blocks), five (5) medium density residential blocks (reduced from 6 blocks), one (1) high density residential block, two (2) school blocks, two (2) park blocks, road widening blocks and various reserve blocks served by 14 new streets and the extension of Dyer Drive subject to the conditions contained in the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Schedule “39T-11503”.   (2023-D12)

Motion Passed

2.6   2022 Annual Development Report

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 2022 Annual Development Report - Complete

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated February 21, 2023 entitled “2022 Annual Development Report” BE RECEIVED for information.   (2023-D02)

Motion Passed

2.7   54 Duchess Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application (HAP23-001-L)

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 54 Duchess Avenue - (HAP23-001-L)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to construct a new building on the property at 54 Duchess Avenue, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as described herein and shown in Appendix C, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit;

b)    the front porch railing to consist of painted wood with spindles set in between a top and bottom rail, if a railing is required;

c)    simulated divided lights be used to implement the two-over-two fenestration pattern of windows; and,

d)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed.   (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

2.9   London Plan Comprehensive Review - Preliminary Approach and Timeline

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Comprehensive Review - Preliminary Approach and Timeline

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated February 21, 2023 entitled “The London Plan Comprehensive Review:  Preliminary Approach and Timeline”, BE RECEIVED for information.   (2023-D08)

Motion Passed

2.8   864 Hellmuth Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application (HAP22-081-L)

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 864 Hellmuth Avenue (HAP22-081-L)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to pave a portion of the front yard for parking on the heritage designated property at 864 Hellmuth Avenue, within the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back at the next meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, with respect to the installation of a driveway to be contingent upon the applicant applying for both a Heritage Alteration permit and a building permit for the installation of an accessible ramp;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation and received a communication from P. McCulloch-Squires, with respect to this matter.  (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Vote:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That P. McCulloch-Squires BE GRANTED delegation status with respect to the property located at 864 Hellmuth Avenue.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   1930-1940 Oxford Street East (Z-9571)

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Z-9571 - 1930-1940 Oxford Street East (Z-9571)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Oxford Seven Inc., relating to the property located at 1930-1940 Oxford Street East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 7, 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 Restrictive Service Commercial (RSC1/RSC4/RSC5) Zone TO a Restrictive Service Commercial (RSC1/RSC2/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone;

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

  •    Taylor Bridges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

 

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

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

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

  •    the proposed amendment will assist in transitioning the area south of the railway corridor to commercial/industrial-oriented uses which are appropriate for the existing mixed-use landscape.   (2023-D21)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Arva Sanitary Servicing Agreement 

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Arva Sanitary Servicing Amendment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, regarding the request by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre for an amendment to the servicing agreement between the Municipality and the City of London:

 

a)    authority BE DELEGATED  the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve an amendment to the Agreement removing the annual and five year limits on units added;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED execute the amendment to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development;

c)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to ensure an amended agreement requires appropriate payment for development charges, sanitary and sewer charges; and,

d)    the staff report dated February 21, 2023 entitled “Request from Municipality of Middlesex Centre: Arva Sanitary Servicing” BE RECEIVED for information.   (2023-E02)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   Hyde Park Business Improvement Association - Community Improvement Plans

2023-02-21 Submission - Hyde Park BIA - CIP Reviews

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the communication dated January 31, 2023 from the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association, BE REFERRED to the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) And Financial Incentives Program 5-Year Review being undertaken by Civic Administration, to assess the feasibility of the Hyde Park Hamlet as a candidate for a Community Improvement Plan and financial incentives, specifically for Gainsborough Road; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

 

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2023, from P. Sattler, MPP, London West;

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2023 from M. Inglis, Gymworld Inc.;

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2023 from V. Balazs, Owner, JAYDANCIN INC.;

  •    a communication dated February 16, 2023 from M. Sakr, President and Managing Director, FastSigns; and,

  •    a communication dated February 17, 2023 from T. Delaney, General Manager, Oxford Dodge.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Vote:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

The request for delegation status by D. Szpakowski, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association, BE GRANTED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 53 minutes)

It’s 401, I will call the fourth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to order. 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 Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwak, and Adelwanderan.

We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I’d like to welcome the visiting counselors, counselor Raman and counselor Pribble to today’s meeting.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact PAC, which is PEC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension, 2425. At this time, I will ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move to the consent items.

Many members, as we only have one PPM, usually if there are any consent items pulled, we would put them at the end of the agenda, but today I ask your indulgence that we will deal with it with the consent item package. So I will be pulling 2.8 as requested. Are there any other consent items that members would like hold today? And I would look for a motion to put the consent items, all consent items, except for 2.8.

On the floor, counselor Hillier, I seconder and counselor Frank. Any discussion or questions of staff at this time, counselor Frank? Thank you, yes. I do have a question for 2.3 for the committee advisory committee on planning.

It seems that there hasn’t been quorum for last two meetings. So I just wanted to through the chair to staff, ask about what the next steps would be to try and address this quorum issue they’ve been having. Is that regarding 2.8? Sorry, 2.3.

So I’ll go to staff on that question. Through your worship, it is very difficult when we have these kind of concerns where we don’t have quorum. So we usually work with the clerks on handling that. So if you’d like some further information, we can work with clerks and get that back to you as far as what the next steps would be.

Thank you. And while planning is probably the most important committee, you don’t have to refer to me as your worship, counselor. Thank you, yes. I would like that.

I’m not sure if we needed a motion for that to direct staff, but I would like that because I’m not sure if they continue to have quorum issues, if they would be able to then ask us to repopulate there. Do you know what I mean? If they can’t make quorum to ask us to repopulate the committee, then how can we repopulate the committee with people that attend? So I’ll go to the clerk for that, ‘cause I think that’s, you know, that probably should go to another committee for that.

So I’ll ask the clerk clerk to weigh in on that. Ms. Westlake, powers, can you comment on that question, my councilor Frank? Yes, thank you through the chair.

We do have a policy that governs all of the advisory committees. And it’s, while it is under review, it’s the general policy for advisory committees. And it addresses absences from meetings and attendance. So we have reached out to the various members.

I can confirm that, excuse me, there has not been consistency in the absences resulting in the two meetings that did not achieve quorum. So what I’m saying is it would appear that it’s a bit of an anomaly, although it is unusual to have it happen to meetings in a row. It’s not consistent, consistently the same people not attending that has resulted in this. We’ve also reached out to a few of the members whose attendance has been fairly sporadic to just determine whether or not there are any supports needed to foster their participation.

So we are working on it from our end, but the meeting time was established by the committee members. So we’re doing our best, but it is a bit unusual, particularly with this committee that they haven’t achieved quorum. There is one vacancy on the committee, which does affect the ability to achieve quorum marginally. And by that, it’s the same requirement for quorum, whether there’s 15 members or whether there’s 14 members.

So the test remains the same. But there are 14 members appointed and we are reviewing this and we do expect that within the coming months that we would be in a position to re-examined some of the vacancies on all of the advisory committees. So I hope that’s helpful. Councilor, I have Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you, I do have a couple of questions. I’ll start with 2.1 and 2.2, I can do those together.

And through you, I really appreciate these updates that we get every month from the building division. But as I go through the numbers, I’m always looking to find out where we are today and where have we been the past number of years. And maybe through the chair to staff, if I can get a better understanding as opposed to just reviewing where we were last year to this year, if you can have a, give us a broader understanding of the work that is being done in the building division throughout the past number of years. Mr.

Maydars, through the chair, Peter Coors is actually online, so he’ll be able to provide some further details. These are a cheap building official. Mr. Coors.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Councillor Hopkins, for the opportunity to comment, pardon me. Basically, we do have a summary of the last five years in terms of averages.

And with committee’s indulgence, I’d be happy to provide some numbers related to those averages so we can see where we are, where we were last year in 2022, compared to those numbers. So you will see that the construction value in 2022 rounded up was $1.6 billion. And that came shy of 2021 all-time record of $1.63 billion. But to put into perspective, because it’s comparing it to all-time records, it’s not really fair.

So if we look at the five-year average, the number equates to $1.45 billion in terms of total construction value. So we’re obviously higher than the five-year average. If I may, I’d like to look at the total number of dwelling units that were created via the permits that were issued. In 2022, you will see that there were 2,598 units.

It is less than the five-year average, which is 3,144. But I will say that the 2022 data is in line with 2017, 2018, and 2019. And here, again, in 2021, the 3,999 units that were created was, again, an all-time record high for dwelling units. And if I may, just to break it down a bit further, looking at singles and semi-detached units, we had 612 last year.

The five-year average was 794. But the 2022 aligns with the numbers in 2018, which was 656 units. And if I may, just for townhouses, 709 units last year in 2022. Compared to last year, we had 891.

That was also an all-time record in terms of townhouse units. The five-year average, 702 units. So we’re very, very close with the five-year average on the townhouse units. And one last item, if I may, is the institutional, commercial, and industrial sector.

The total construction value there was 579 million. The five-year average, 435 million. So obviously, significantly higher, as far as the ICI permits are concerned. Okay, thank you.

That paints a good picture for us, Councilor. Yes, Mr. Chair, I agree. I do appreciate seeing that broader perspective of a number of years, as opposed to just the last year, given the, you know, things haven’t been normal the past couple of years.

And it’s really difficult when we get these reports comparing them to the previous year or so. So thank you very much for that. Very comprehensive update. I have a couple of other questions.

I don’t know if you want me to stop now. Please go ahead, Councilor. Okay, thank you. Just looking at 2.4, which is the Talbot Village subdivision phase seven, finally phase seven.

It’s been a number of years, I think we’ve been dealing with this subdivision for almost over 20 years. And it’s really good to see phase seven coming forward. I know there’s a number of special provisions, and I also understand that there’s a lot more development to come going further east along Southdale and all those changes. And I wonder if staff just could give me a general idea with these special provisions as they most likely relate to the storm water management and all that are there challenges or concerns going forward.

Like I said, it’s been a long time coming. I’m really glad to see this phase seven coming forward, but lots more work to do in this area and just have a better understanding of the challenges, if any. Mr. Mathers.

Thank you very much. Through the chair, Matt Davenport is here to be able to provide some background. Please go ahead through the chair. Yes, there are some, I’ll say minor stormwater challenges in the area.

You may have noticed through the special provisions that there’s an interim stormwater pond being proposed. That is to deal with flows exterior to the subdivision in the interim. Ultimately, the solution for the area relies on Pac Road being reconstructed and a new elevation being established so that the flows can make their way to the Talbot pond. At the Western limit, that was one of the larger ones as part of the earlier phases.

So until that time happens, there will be these interim solutions that will have to come into play. Councilor? Yeah, I really appreciate that. As we talk about infrastructure and developments in the area, they do have to align and glad to know that hopefully they’ll be coming through with the reconstruction of Pac Road.

Just another, maybe it’s just a comment on 2.5, which is 1602 Sunningdale Road West. The three-year extension, I know we’ve had a number of extensions. I also know we’ve made this pledge and we’ve probably got a number of units around 15,000 still to do, but I’m starting to look at these extensions very carefully. When they come forward, obviously, there’s a number of red line divisions, which is fine, but there have been a number of extensions and I’m starting to be very cautious now.

And when I read them, so just wanted to make that comment as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Councilor Lewis? Thank you, Chair. And through you, more a comment than a question, although my question through you to Mr. Mathers might be if he’s got a time machine, can I borrow it for the weekend?

I see that we’re gonna have the 2.9 come back in April, and I would just know that there was a typo that’s at April 11th of 2022, and I’m sure it was intended to be 2023, but if the deputy city manager does have a time machine, I wouldn’t mind borrowing it for an afternoon. That said, when we’re looking at the London Plan comprehensive review, and just a comment for staff to take into consideration as we move towards getting this process kick started, one of the things that I have found in the last two and a half years on this committee is just how very, very subjective and open to interpretation. The language is around fit with the neighborhood, and I think that that is something that we really have to look at, at least defining a bit better within the London Plan moving forward as we look at some amendments to that, if not perhaps removing that language and replacing it with something that’s more appropriate, because it is a source of constant conflict. It has been a source of differences in interpretation between counselors and staff, between residents and counselors, between staff and residents, between builders and residents.

It’s just so subjective. What fits to me may not fit to someone else and vice versa. So I hope that as we move forward on this, that descriptor in there about proposals being a good fit or consistent with the character of the neighborhood is reviewed and perhaps some more definitive language or some criteria around what defines what is a good fit for the character of the neighborhood might be helpful moving forward. So I just wanna share those preliminary thoughts now.

I know we’ve got a lot of work to do on this and we are going to be talking about this for quite a while in the months ahead here, but just some preliminary feedback. Thank you, counselor, any other comments from the committee or from visiting counselors? I just have one, if I’m coming to allow me from the chair, just a follow up on counselor Hopkins inquiry. As we, more of these subdivisions come on stream in the south end, see impact on our current sanitation treatment facilities plans.

And are we reaching the point where we are going to have to look at the possibility of constructing another treatment plant in the south end? Through the chair, I’ll just speak very broadly to that. So as far as what we have currently, as far as for our development applications, we don’t have a trigger at this point for new capacity. There’s a master planning and development charges process that we go through from time to time that will establish those needs.

So I don’t know if anything, this family wants to add to that. However, we do have an approach and there isn’t a trigger at this point for that. Okay, you wanna add? Through the chair, I can confirm that at this time, we don’t have a forecasted need for an additional treatment plant.

There have been a number of upgrades over the last number of years, and others plan to a greenway treatment plant, the Wonderland pump station, and so on to manage our flows that way rather than building another treatment plant. Okay, thank you. That’s all I had. I understand, counselor Frank, I would like to speak or go ahead please.

Thank you, and through the chair, my question is more about the item 2.6, annual development report. I was looking through it and I really like laying, or how it’s all laid out and all the maps. So thank you very much to staff for putting that together. My question was about the intensification target.

So it looks like in 2022, we achieved a 20% intensification target within the built area boundary, and that’s significantly down from previous years of over 35%, I would say at least on average, up to 51%. And then even within, if you dig a little bit deeper within the primary transit area, it’s only like 13% intensification target. So given our target is 45%, I was just wondering if staff had any commentary or explanation as to why it’s so significantly down, other than obviously things aren’t being built in that area, but I’m just wondering if there’s any reasoning that they have or understanding of why that’s happening. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, Kevin Edwards is gonna be able to provide a response to that question. So through the chair, a lot of intensifications driven by high density development. And you’ll see it’s often cyclical as well.

So last year we had a really large amount of high density. It was primarily focused on downtown. So you saw a lot of permits being pulled last year, a lot of cranes in the air this year. So I think that’s part of the driver as well, is like I said, it’s cyclical.

So a lot of what was permitted last year is being built this year. Based on what we’re seeing in terms of pre-applications, I certainly expect that to ramp back up as well in upcoming years. Councilor. Thank you.

And through the chair, I’m just wondering ‘cause we saw back until 2017 on the report. And I’m just wondering if there was another year where it was at 20% or close, or if staff are at all worried about like, I understand the cyclical nature, but when it’s at like 37 to like 50 to 46 to 20, I just feel 20 is actually a very significant drop. So I’m just trying to understand if that has happened in the past. I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair. So it’s based on a 2016 year starting point. So that’s as far back as information goes. So I guess part of it is to the intensification rate.

We have had a really strong HDR permits being built since 2016. So this has been a bit of an anomaly in terms of the year. I think that partially explains it. I think as we move forward, we’ll have a better sense of our data, but currently at this point in time, I certainly in terms of what we’ve been seeing in pre-applications, I certainly expect that rate to return to previous levels.

Councilor. Through the chair, just to add to that as well, as part of our housing action, housing supply action plan that we’re developing, that’s gonna be a compete key component of it. So it’s not gonna be just looking at green field growth. It needs to be looking at the intensification and ensuring that we have the servicing available that’s supported as well.

So that is a key component of our housing supply action plan that we’re gonna be coming forward with in the future. Councilor. Thank you, yes. And this kind of straddles between 2.6 and 2.9.

One of the things I noticed that we didn’t see a lot of in the annual development report was just more discussion about the primary transit area. And I understand that the built area boundary is kind of the edges that we’re using for a lot of the intensification rates and the targets. And I’m just wondering through the official plan review and through these annual development reports, how come we aren’t using the primary transit area as like more of our intensification target? Just my understanding it like from an intensification target it probably makes sense that we use where people can reach transit as our kind of built boundaries.

So I don’t know if staff again have a explanation as to why we don’t use the primary transit area as our intensification range or at our limit? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, that’s a very insightful comment.

It’s actually what we’re gonna be using as our basis for our housing supply plan because as much as intensification is very much important. If we wanna look at where we’re structuring the growth to occur, that is where we need to be providing for those opportunities, ensuring that we have the servicing and everything else that follows appropriate a rethink zoning process and all of those policies in place. So that will be a main crutch about this housing supply strategy is looking at those areas. Historically, and if we just go back to time a little bit, intensification and having a goal for intensification is a fairly new London plan process.

So from there, we do need to really refine that to ensure that we’re providing that intensification in the right location as well. It can’t just be anywhere in the built out area. So the focus does need to be able to look at the investments that we are making and from a transit perspective in making sure that we have allowed for intensification in those locations. So that will be, again, a main component of this housing supply action plan is looking at where do we want the intensification and making sure that we have the servicing to provide it in those locations.

Councillor. Thank you. And through you, to staff, me is just more of a comment. And I’m not sure if this is part of the review that you’re doing, but I would love to see an intensification target for within the PTA on top of the intensification target within the built area boundary.

‘Cause to your point, I do think it would be if we have a target, we can set a goal. I think it should be obviously higher within the PTA than our 45% that we have across the built area boundary. So I don’t know who makes that decision or when it happens, but that’s my pitch for having an intensification target for the PTA on top of the BAB. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, there’s a lot of comment on how targets are arrived at and are reported. Yep, through the chair. So those targets are gonna be developed with this group that we’re forming.

It was just approved by council last week so that we’re getting to a strong start here, but I think that’s a very good piece of feedback and we’ll bring that to the group to be able to develop targets. Moving forward and there’ll be an opportunity for council to be able to weigh in on what we’re developing as targets too. So just stay tuned for now. But I think what I’m hearing very much aligns with what we’re looking at bringing forward, Councilor.

Thank you, that’s everything. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Councilor Frank, for those questions.

You got me thinking about how when we receive these reports, like the two that we’re consenting to today, but the London Plan and our pledge for 47,000 units, are we going to be able to have a better grasp on and the comprehensive review of the London Plan, of course, and other comprehensive reviews that we’re going to be receiving this year? Are we going to be able to have a really good understanding how all these plans and policies align? Is there work being done there as opposed to reading one report and then just discussing those targets and numbers, I just want to have a better sense of how are we speaking to each other with these reports? Through the chair, we actually were finding while we were developing this last report that you have in front of you today, starting to get our mind around with it, whether there’s a different way to report out on this.

‘Cause there’s a lot of reports on the same types of aspects, whether it’s the building, separate from the planning, their annual report or a GMIS strategy as well. Those are all things I kind of touched on, on the work that we do. So the hope is that if we kind of build this around having a housing supply action plan, that plan lays out how we will be reporting back to Council when this is the appropriate timing. What are the metrics that we’re using?

Make sure we’re consistent. If it’s valuable to be able to take a look at the last five years of data, like the information that was provided today, I think that’s very valuable to be able to see those trends and to know where they came from. So the idea is that through this process, to be able to come up with a way that is more comprehensive, rather than just having the reports that we’ve always done, which are very helpful and very productive, but do it in more of a way that is more considered of the overall strategy going forward. So that’s the hope.

Thank you, Councilor. Good to hear, thank you. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion to hear for the consent items, moved and seconded, so I will call the vote.

Opposed and the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and I will go to the one consent item that was pulled 2.8. The request came from Councilor Lewis, so I won’t go to your Councilor. Thank you, through you, Chair.

We did also have a submission from the applicant requesting delegation status today. I would like to move that we actually receive the delegation. I think that the applicant deserves an opportunity to address, certainly I know he shared some concerns with us via email, but I think he deserves an opportunity to bring forward his concerns around his application and the recommendation that’s before us today. So I’m gonna move that and then we can, if there’s a seconder, we can hear from the applicant and then move on to debate on this.

Okay, I assume that the applicant is in the gallery, or is the— - He’s online too. He’s online, okay. I’ll seconder, Councilor Frank, and I’ll call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So the applicant understand you’re online. If you could state your name and you have five minutes, please go ahead. Good afternoon, members of the Planning and Environment Committee. My name is Philip McCullough-Squires, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding my heritage alteration permit application.

In March 2022, I submitted an application for a driveway to the city, which received all necessary approvals, except for the required heritage alteration permit. As a result, I’m here to express my concerns and explain my situation. I sent an email to the members of the committee last week, and while my additional photos were included in my application, they don’t see the email attached to the agenda. However, I trust you, I’ll review my email, and I want to express my gratitude to those who took the time to respond to me.

Provide some context, my application seeks permission to construct a front driveway to accommodate my disabled mother-in-law who will be moving into my home. I want to emphasize that this edition will not affect the heritage appearance of the district, as many of my immediate neighbors already have driveways, some of which are double driveways. Additionally, I have sufficient space to park along the side of my house, which is compliant with zoning rules and has been approved by the city already. Notably, 66% of the homes in the Bishop Hall with district have driveways, and my request is in line with this common trend.

If you have any questions or concerns about my application, I’m happy to address them. I also want to note that I have some concerns about the transparency and ethics of the heritage alteration permit process, which I can elaborate on if needed. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Mr.

McCullough-Squares. Any questions for the delegate? I’ll allow the committee to have questions being that the advisory committee was not able to reach quorum. So I will look for, oh, I have Councilor Frank.

Yes, thank you. And thank you for the email that you sent along and being able and willing to present. We hopefully will be addressing some of the quorum issues with the advisory committee because I understand that delay also can be quite frustrating. I did have one question, and I was just trying to understand a little bit more about the accessibility needs of the space.

My understanding is there’s stairs at the front and the back, and I was just wondering if you could speak a little bit about how having a driveway at the front would increase the accessibility access to the front space. Thank you. Mr. McCullough-Squares, there’s a question regarding just a bit more detail on how accessibility would be improved over the current situation at your home.

Please go ahead. Sure, thanks for your question. So in the back, I’ll just kind of walk through around my house to try to give you an idea of what it looks like, but essentially it’s on and the house is on and inclines down in the backyard. So there’s an entrance to the basement from the back, but there’s actually a steep drop as soon as you get in to the basement, and the basement ceilings are low, and like the corridors in the hallway in the basement wouldn’t allow for a stair lift for a wheelchair up into the home, so the basement doesn’t work.

And then two, if we’re facing the front of the house to the left, there is an entrance, but it requires two small sites of stairs to come up. So the installation of a ramp there, it would be extremely challenging, particularly in the wintertime. It would be a long, lengthy ramp, and I don’t think that would actually work or be conducive to the front of the home. There’s just a small flight of the stairs, and also to the right of the home, there’s the side of the stairs, so there’s entrances on either side.

There on one of those stairs, I could install a temporary ramp. We’re only looking at four or five steps. So you would pull out and come up and then just go up that one short flight on a removable ramp. I’m thinking of putting that at the side of my house, so it wouldn’t be in front of the home, and we’d be pulling up to the side of the house with the designated spot of the parking lot.

Parking, sorry, the driveway. Does that answer your question? Thank you, Councillor. Thanks, yes, that gives me a better understanding.

Just to further understand, I know it’s hard to explain verbally and with photos, but so then would you take down the fence between yours and the neighbor’s house to then get to that side entrance where the steps are? So they’re current, actually. There is no fence, really. There’s a fence, like there’s no parallel fence.

There’s a perpendicular fence that fences off the side of the house, so that would be removed to make the driveway as is consistent with many other four neighbors. They have similar models. Thank you, Councillor, you’re good. Other committee members or questions, comments, motions, Councillor, I’ve been advised by the clerk, it’s not a PPM, it’s a delegation, so I don’t have to go to the committee to close the PPM.

Okay, so do we need, just procedurally, through you, Mr. Chair, then do we need to a motion to receive the delegation before we move on to the actual item on their agenda? No, you’ve made a little bit of grant. No, we do not need that.

I’ll go to Councillor Locos. Thank you. Then through you, Chair, you know, I read this report. This property is designated under part five.

It’s part of a conservation district. The designation is not specific to the property itself. I’ve driven through the neighbourhood on the weekend, and I do see that the staff noted that the majority of the driveways at least seem to be pre-existing to the conservation district, notwithstanding that they’re pre-existing to the conservation district. I strongly disagree with the staff assessment that it would be out of character, given that the other existing driveways are already there.

And I don’t think that when the heritage conservation district designation was passed, that it was ever passed with the intent to limit accessibility, particularly for a family, that is seeking to allow an parent to age in place with family members, which in and of itself, we want to encourage and reduce the pressure on long-term care beds. So I am going to, notwithstanding the staff recommendation, move that the heritage alteration permit for 864 Elmouth Ave be approved. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Hillier.

Any questions or comments? Councillor Fray. Thank you. Yes, I was wondering through the chair to staff, if we could just hear a little bit about like Preston’s setting, I’m not sure if we’ve had, again, being new on council, I’m not sure if we have refused a heritage report from staff, and if we do refuse this one, if that does have an impact on future driveway heritage permits, and if staff have any comments on that?

I’ll go to staff to this committee decision on this particular case with that influence future similar type applications. Thank you. Oops, sorry, go ahead. I thank you and through the chair.

The staff recommendation is based on an analysis of the application that was submitted, and the consideration of the policies in the Bishop Hellmouth Heritage Conservation District Plan, which do work to discourage new front yard parking, recognizing the importance of the laneway system that’s present within the Bishop Hellmouth Heritage Conservation District. I heard Michael Gregwell heritage planner just chime in there, so I would just pass it to him at this point. Thank you. Councillor, oh, sorry, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Mr. Ronyou. Just noting that in terms of precedent setting through the chair, that previously there was a one heritage alteration permit approved for parking was for 270 James Street, which is a corner property, did not have access to a rear laneway. In terms of approving a heritage alteration permit that would be not consistent with the policies and guidelines of the heritage conservation district plan.

Again, hard to look into it first of all, but it has the potential to be precedent setting. Councillor, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I won’t be supporting the motion in front of us being around a little while, and I know this is not unusual. And as much as I am sympathetic to the accessibility challenges, the fact that there is that laneway at the back does provide some kind of access.

And I think if we are going to head into dangerous territory by setting a precedent, I think if we need to change our policies, we should change our policies. Would be the better direction to go, but doing these, I almost want to say one offs. Within a heritage district, it’s something that I rely on the process and our policy to allow this or not. And I will be not supporting the motion in front of us.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Lewis. Thank you.

And so I just want to follow up on that for a moment. You know, I’m going to share this comment. I’ve shared this comment before on other applications, both those we’ve approved and refused. It’s actually our job as Councillors, we’re the only ones in the corporation who can deviate from policy.

We have to use the judgment that our electorate has placed in us to make the decisions as to when one offs are appropriate. But I want to highlight some language from our policies. Section 5.7, paving over front yard for car parking is strongly discouraged, not that we wouldn’t ever consider it, but discouraged. Section 4.5, a priority is that car parking be accessed off the back lane if absent car parking should be located to the side or rear of the new building.

It’s very clear that the back lane, as we’ve heard from the applicant both in writing and in his presentation, is absent in terms of an individual with an accessibility issue being able to access the building. So, you know, even in terms of the language that where car parking may disturb neighboring properties, there’s car parking on other properties adjacent to this property. And preexisting or not, they’re already there and they’ve already altered the landscape. So, I want to encourage colleagues to consider that, you know, as we heard from Mr.

Go on you, every application is assessed based on its own merit. While I know staff are always going to be concerned about whether or not we are setting a precedent, it is absolutely our job to consider rare instances where the policies are not being applied in a way that because staff have to do this, they have to follow the policies as written, but it’s our ability to alter those policies where exceptional circumstances exist. And I think this is a very clear case of a circumstance that’s exceptional enough to allow for some deviation for the policy. So, I do encourage colleagues to support this.

I don’t think that we, I think we have to recognize that we are balancing competing interests here, accessibility versus heritage, but it is up to us to make the decision as to which one is going to win out the day for us here. And for me, that’s about accessibility. Families should not be prohibited from having a relative with mobility issues, access and live in their home, particularly when we’re not altering a heritage property. We are making an exception to a heritage conservation district in a very limited fashion here for an accessibility feature.

So, I do encourage colleagues to support this. Thank you, Council Frank. Thank you, and I just have one follow-up question ‘cause I’m still trying to picture this and from the photos, there’s a car in the first photo that was included in the submission that’s kind of blocking it, but I’m just trying to understand, is there a way for a car to get to the side entrance from the back, from the lane lane? I’m not sure if that’s, I guess probably the resident would know if there is a way to, I just can’t see in these photos if there is a way to get to it from the back lane way.

Mr. Mokolick squires, I’ll go to you for, I’m not sure if you grasp the question from the counselor. If you’d like her to repeat it or expound on that, please let me know or please go ahead and answer her. I think I understood, I’ll provide an answer and if she wants more clarification, I’m happy to try to provide that.

So the side entrance on the right side of the house texts us that from the back lane, there’s a retaining wall that’s several feet high. So I have that because the property is on an incline. So I’m faced with the same challenge of going through the backyard and then sort of up the retaining wall. So it’s just as bad as going around the two flights of stairs to the entrance on the left side.

If you want, if you have more questions, please ask me. Counselor, that’s it. Any other questions or comments from committee or visiting counselors? I’d like to hand a chair over to counselor Lewis ‘cause I’d like to weigh in on this conversation.

I will recognize counselor Lehman. Thank you. Yeah, so firstly, I would have hoped that the community advisory committee and planning would have had quorum and we could have had their input on this. But being that as of May, we’re faced with a decision with a heritage district and keeping within the parameters of that.

I just want to clarify with staff that this property is not heritage designated property. It’s just in a heritage district. Two staff for that, Mr. Gloney.

Thank you and through the chair. The property here at 864 Helmut Avenue is a heritage designated property under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. The heritage designating by-law is registered on the title of the property as it is for every property in a heritage conservation district. Within the construct of the Ontario Heritage Act, there’s no hierarchy between an individually designated property or a property located within a heritage conservation district.

Okay, thank you through the chair. Thank you for that clarification. So, again, and that doesn’t help my, ‘cause I’m torn on this, quite frankly. I know the street, I know the characteristics of the street and there are laneways in front.

I’m a big proponent of laneways behind houses and neighborhoods. That being said, I think we have to encourage multi-generational homes as we move into challenges with bigger propensity of our population aging and to address our housing shortage. I think in this particular case, one outweighs the other. So, for that reason, because I want to encourage multi-generational homes in London and on this street and the fact that there are other, currently other driveways in front of the house on this street, I will be supporting the motion that’s currently on the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Layman for those comments. I will return the chair to you and I have only myself on the speaker’s list next. I just want to clarification on the question you just asked.

Thank you. I will go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair and through you, while there may not be a particular hierarchy, I wonder if Mr.

Ganyu could explain the difference between a part four and a part five heritage designation. Please explain the difference. Sure, and thank you for that question. Part four designation is for an individual property and with the regulations of the Ontario Heritage Act, there’s a detailed list of heritage attributes that are identified that support the cultural heritage value interest of that individual property and whether it meets the mandated criteria of Ontario Regulation 906.

So when we bring forward recommendations for designation, you may be familiar with some of those terms, a statement that explains why that individual property is significant and those attributes that make it significant. When we’re looking at a heritage conservation district, that’s designated as a group of properties together under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. One of the changes in bill 23 was provisions to what the province expected for designations of a heritage conservation district. At the time the Bishop Helmuth Heritage Conservation District was designated in 2003, it met the criteria in our official plan for its designation and hence the bylaw was passed under part five.

It recognizes that the group of the properties together have cultural heritage value or interest. Well, many of the properties individually may merit designation under the individual property criteria under part four. It’s what the group of properties together here that make them significant. So that includes the buildings, the landscapes, and their shared histories that contributes to its heritage character that has been defined in the Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The Heritage Conservation District Plan articulates that heritage character and sets out policies and guidelines in order to help manage change in that area that’s especially respectful of that heritage character that has been identified and also defined and described. I hope that helps, but I’m happy to go further if there’s follow up. Deputy Mayor. No, that’s helpful and that’s fine.

And so I just want to clarify my comments from earlier when I said that the individual property itself is how I should have phrased it, that the individual property itself does not have a part for designation. Its cultural heritage as a nation under part five is only with respect to it and part of a group of structures not on its own. So just wanted to clarify that comment from earlier. Thank you, and Councillor Frank.

Thank you. And I think this might be to staff, so through the chair, I’m just wondering in the future for ramps, if the applicant would be putting a ramp in on the side of the house, one would that trigger a building permit and two would a ramp on the outside of the house, then would that be a consideration for the heritage alteration permit as well through the system? Mr. Mathers, I’ll go through you too.

Through you, Your Worship. So Peter of course is here to speak to the building permit element, and then we’ll go back to Mr. Guardian for the other element. Mr.

Clerk of course. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you, in this particular case, a ramp, if it’s attached to the dwelling or to the building, would indeed require a building permit.

I just want to make a distinction between a type of ramp that utilizes the ground for sloping purposes, and in that particular case, there would be no building permit required. It’s only if we are talking about actual structure. Councillor? Through the chair.

Could I just get that explained a little bit more, because I’m confused about the differences between the different types of ramps? Mr. Carcores, you just need to clarify a little bit more for those of us who are not familiar with building permits. Thank you.

I’d be happy to do so. And thanks for that follow-up question, Councillor. And again, through you, Mr. Chair.

Ramps can be defined as elements that utilize the ground. And by sloping the ground itself, there’s no superficial structure above the ground in terms of providing access to the building itself. But in other cases where there is actual additional structure created, like think of a pressure treated, wood type ramp, or concrete, that maybe most of us are familiar with, that is indeed a structure, and that would require a building permit. Thank you.

Councillor? Thank you. And then from my further understanding, if we could answer the heritage, if they’d require a heritage permit for then the ramp as well. Yeah, I’ll go through you, Mr.

Mathers. So a good question. If someone would want to put a ramp up for accessibility, how would that be handled from a heritage perspective? Through the chair, I can take this question.

As an alteration, a class of alteration to the veranda, as a part of the Bishop Helmet Heritage Conservation District plan, the ramp would require a heritage alteration permit. Now in the past, heritage alteration permits and accessibility have not been an issue before, and staff have certainly worked with applicants to address any accessibility issues like ramps. So just one example that’s currently under construction is the be can of the life or the London life building at 255 Duffer Avenue. If you’ve been by and see the construction there recently, that’s for the installation of a switchback, barrier free entrance, as well as an interior lift.

So would require a heritage alteration permit, and we would work with the applicant on that. Councillor? Thank you. And I’m not sure if this is a commoner question.

So I’m going to formulate it as I talk, which is how I do my best work. But I am, I guess, wondering if it’s possible to put, I know how we have special provisions on planning applications. Is there a way to put a provision on providing a permit for a driveway with the provision of having the accessible entrance, and not that I don’t have better faith in the applicant for putting in the accessibility entrance for the mother-in-law, but I’m just wondering, again, for future applicants, if people are asking for driveways for accessibility needs, if there is a way to actually tie it to, I guess, then the accessibility structure that is part of the property. So I think in this case, we’ll go back to the mover of the original motion to see if you want to amend your motion to account for the Councillor’s input.

Well, I’m certainly not adverse to conditions like that being in there. I think the better question was through to our staff as to do we have a mechanism to actually do that the way we would put a special, like an H5 or any other sort of special provision on a planning application. Is there anything that can make it conditional on the driveway conditional on the installation of an accessibility ramp as well? I’m not sure what mechanism we would use to do that, although I’m amenable to it.

I will go to Mr. Mathers. Is there a way to achieve the Councillor’s looking for? Through the chair, there’s a couple options.

I’ll just speak to the first one. One would be to actually have a new application submitted that highlights that there is, that there’s additional work that needs to take place, like that there would be a ramp included in this. So that is one option. If you wanted to send this back to us, that’s one opportunity.

The other opportunity would be to make changes on the floor here. And I’ll just lean on the heritage folks to be able to suggest any kind of a way that we can do actually in this moment. Please go ahead. Thank you.

And I would just add to what Mr. Mathers said that there is an existing timeline for this heritage alteration permit application. It has already been referred back. So extending the timeline or a decision following this meeting would be necessary.

But to answer your first question, there’s three possibilities for a heritage alteration permit application. It can be approved with terms and conditions. It can be refused or it can be just approved as it is. So there’s certainly the ability to have terms and conditions on the approval of a heritage alteration permit application.

So I will go back to the mover of the motion to see if he wants to alter the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you, I’m not inclined to refer back as well.

Timelines matter and a new application is just more fees and processes to duplicate work that’s already been done. So I would prefer that we move ahead today. I am certainly open to some wordsmithing. If Councilor Frank might be able to help me out on this that does impose a condition that requires the driveway installation to be not sure what language I’m looking for here, but to be contingent upon the installation also of an accessibility feature, in particular, the aforementioned ramp for accessibility features.

So I hear the clerk’s keyboard taking over there. So I hope she’s capturing this in some language that makes sense, but I’m certainly amenable to a condition that requires the driveway permit to be tied to the accessibility ramp being installed as well. While the clerk works on that, I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

And I just wanna follow up on staff’s comments about the referral back. What would be the difference for you, Chair, to staff, if we did it that way as opposed to doing it the way we’re trying to amend the motion, because I do appreciate it should be tied to the ramp. I think that would be really important, but I’m just trying to understand the differences here. Mr.

Mathers, the main difference is just the timeframe for the applicant. The applicant just did share with us as far as, ‘cause we did consider possibly pulling this and working with the applicant, but there was a concern about their timeframe being able to move forward with this application. So that’s the biggest impact. If there is a way to craft it, then that would be ideal as it would meet the timeframe of the applicant.

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, I guess with that, I would be supportive doing it either way. I do appreciate the questions, and I would hope that it can be done either way, so I’d be supportive, thank you. So that the clerk has a motion that we can take a look at, and I will go to the mover of the motion to see if that is acceptable to him, and then we can go to the floor to his questions or comments on the new revised motion.

Please go ahead, Councilor Lewis. Yeah, I do see that the clerk has added, be approved with the following terms and conditions. The driveway installation be contingent upon the installation of an accessible ramp. I’m fine with that language if my seconder is.

I think that that’s a reasonable approach. And I’ll go to the seconder, and he’s indicating that’s okay with them. So now we have, I would say, an amendment or a change motion on the floor, I will go, Councilor Frank. Thank you, and just through the staff, I’m just wondering if they could validate maybe that amendment, like is that possible?

Like, I guess what does contingent mean with that, then be like at the building permit stage for the ramp, they’d need that, and then they could make them. So just trying to understand if this is feasible for staff to achieve. Mr. Mathers.

I’ll speak to this through you, Mr. Chair. The challenge here that it hasn’t been addressed is they actually need to make a HAP for the ramp itself. And so we can’t make it contingent on the ramp.

There’s a separate application, which was not considered as part of this application. The application was for the driveway only. Sticky Wicket, Councilor Frank. Through the chair, then maybe if possible, I could turn to the applicant and ask if they are planning on filing a HAP for the ramp in any time soon.

Mr. McCulloch squires, you’ve been following the discussion. Do you have plans for a wheelchair accessible ramp installation at your property? If I understood correctly from what Peter said earlier, I believe a ramp that sits on the ground that I put on the stairs didn’t require permit.

But I don’t know, perhaps I thought I understood that. That was the approach I’ve been considering for this. Okay, thank you. So it sounds like the applicant is planning to put, Mr.

Kakorus referred to is not a structural thing, but a ramp on grade, not a ramp, but I’m not too sure the proper word for it. So I’ll put it back to you, Councilor Frank. Thank you, and through the chair and sorry, I’m really trying not to get technical on ramps, ‘cause it was not my intention. But my understanding with Mr.

Kakorus was, it sounded like he meant physically dirt that sloped towards a house that was a ramp. Like that would require no permit. And so I imagine the applicant’s not trying to do a dirt sloped ramp. So I’m just trying to understand, I guess, what requires a building permit?

What doesn’t? And what kind of ramp is the applicant trying to put onto the side of the house? So if I could go to Mr. Kakorus, can you, we’re not looking at, applicants is not looking at putting a structural ramp up.

Can you describe the option A of the other type of ramp and in a little bit further detail for us? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I can.

Basically the terminology used minutes ago was sloping the ground, sloping dirt. So sloping dirt alone. And again, we don’t have the details right now to see if there are retaining walls involved and whatnot. I’m not sure if the applicant perhaps can be more descriptive as to what type of ramp the applicant wishes to install.

But previously, I mentioned that if it’s just dirt that slopes from one end of the property up to, let’s say, the front porch and it’s just a dirt alone. There are no retaining walls. There’s nothing above the dirt. As I said, pressure treated, decking, concrete structure.

The dirt alone is just considered an extension of landscaping and would not fall under the purview of a building permit requirement. Councillor. Thank you. And then so through the chair, it did sound like the applicant was then mentioning a structure, whether it’s one that it can just kind of sit on top of the stairs or one that’s screwed and installed.

So again, I don’t know if a semi-permanent ramp requires a building permit. So I’m just not sure, I guess, then if it requires a hap. So it would make— anyway. Yeah, I’m just trying to understand what kind of ramp this is going to be.

So I don’t know if the applicant, again, could maybe describe what their intention is for the ramp or what the design is that they’re planning. Mr. McCulloch squares, can you give us a better understanding of the ramp or access, accessibility access from driveway to a front door that you had in mind? Yeah, I apologize.

I’m not well versed in ramps myself. But what I had been looking into— so yeah, I had been looking to something exactly sort of what you’re suggesting, so semi-permanent, sloping from the landscaping, sloping from the ground up to the stairs, sort of what Peter was just referring to. I’ve seen some of those in the neighborhood, so it could be removed later if needed. So not like a big physical structure.

I don’t think that would be necessary. We really just need— I would be honestly looking for the simplest thing that I could do to push the wheelchair up and into the home. And I don’t think we need an elevation or anything like that. I’ve seen those around.

So yeah, basically, I’m looking for the simplest solution, cost-effective solution, and down the road, something that could later be removed when needed. Councillor? Thank you. And maybe this is the final question for Mr.

Kakorus. But did what the applicant described require a building permit, or since it’s semi-permanent, it would not require one? Mr. Kakorus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll reply by saying that the building code does not recognize necessarily temporary or easily movable structures. You either have the structure or you don’t.

I’m getting the impression based on what I just heard. If we’re talking about removing something, clearly it sounds to me like we’re talking about an overbuilt over top of the stairs. I would tend to say a building permit is required for that. What I was speaking earlier is about sloping the ground to provide that type of ramp or that type of sloped access.

Well, if you slope the ground, that’s not something you’re gonna sort of remove. You’re gonna have to re-altered the grading again. So if indeed we’re talking about a structure or something that’s going to be removed, I would tend to say that this falls under the requirements of the building permit. Mr.

McCulloch Squires, are you talking about a structure here or just landscaping? Well, I would need a ramp on the stairs to push the wheelchair up. But I’m willing to make that as accommodating as possible to meet the heritage guidelines and everything down the road not to overly change the structure on the outside or the side of my home. But yes, I would need a ramp over the stairs.

Councilor Frick. All right, perfect. I think I have a solution. Could we make it dependent on building permits then?

So instead of the contingency being on a HAP for the ramp, could we make it contingent on a building permit for the ramp? And can this approval be also contingent like the building permit process? I’m not sure again, I should read again, but did this permit already get the building permit? It was just waiting on the HAP.

I don’t know which, I’m gonna go to, I’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So if this is something that requires a building permit, they’re gonna have to get another heritage alteration like application to come forward if they wanna suggest something that needs a building permit.

As was noted before, it’s usually not an issue ‘cause of course we wanna really focus on having accessible structures. So one opportunity would be if you did wanna rethink about sending this back to us, we could adjust this current application and then bring something forward that covers all of those elements. If you wanna give us direction, we should kinda outline exactly what the committee’s looking for, Councillor. Thank you, and through the chair, I am leaning towards that.

And maybe if there’s a way we could again, speed it up, make it like a 30 or 60 day turnaround, recognizing that this person has waited a very long time to get their approvals, but I am amenable to that just because I think it achieves everything we’re trying to do accessibility, heritage, and making sure that we’re doing it in a timely manner. So I’m tempted to refer back to staff based on that. So my understanding is a referral and that’s what you’re after here. Is that correct, Councillor?

Referral back to staff. Would take precedence over the motion on the floor. So is that what you wanna put on the floor right now or for all motion to refer, okay? Councillor happens.

Yeah, I’d be happy to second that. I think there’s a will with staff and the applicant to come up with a solution here. I think that is what I’m looking for. Going the other way, the whole idea of putting in a driveway is to be accessible and yet we’re tied up with the ramp not being there and not being accessible.

It just doesn’t make sense. And I think here at committee we should, there is that will with staff and the applicant to carry this forward. Happy with putting in a tight timeline there, but happy to second it. So we have a referral on the floor to bring this back to staff to tie in wheelchair accessible ramp of some sort to be to determined, which case it would come back to committee.

I will go to committee members, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. It’s hard to believe, but after tonight, our next planning and environment committee meeting is not until March 20th. So I would suggest that it needs, if we’re going to refer it, it needs to come back at the next meeting.

Staff just need to make it a priority to get this one done. Bring it back to us with the appropriate recommendation that would allow this to move forward so long as the ramp is meeting the building. So I think that’s, I would like to see the referral specific to the next planning and environment committee meeting. If the movers amenable to that, then I can support that.

Mr. Mathers, is that a possibility? Through the chair, that would be very much helpful ‘cause that would direct us to not try to go back to the advisory committee. So that would be, that’s, being specific like that is helpful for us to be able to come back and that wouldn’t be an issue bringing it back to that committee.

Okay, so the clerk will add that to the referral. If that’s okay with the mover of the referral and the seconder. Okay, folks, any other questions, comments that I will put, oh, Mr. Mathers, please go ahead.

Through the chair, just one more item there. So this would push, the deadline is March 8th. So the way that we could move forward is if this was something that was also amenable to the applicant, so the applicant would have to have a part in suggesting that this was an appropriate course of action. So it may be worthwhile to ask the applicant that question.

Mr. McCulloch, squires, as you see where we’re headed here, looks like we’re in your benefit as well ‘cause I’m sure you’re anxious to get this moving forward and you will acquire some quick work on your part. Are you willing to make this happen or work with staff in an expedited way? Yes, I am, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the committee before I put the referral on the floor? Seeing none, Council, you’re fast. Please go ahead.

I just wanna say thank you ‘cause I did not expect to spend it this much time on this file and I appreciate the staff and the applicants’ willingness to work together. Thank you, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that takes care of the consent items.

We’ll move, we have one item on the schedule items, 3.1, public participation meeting for 1940 Oxford Street East. We’ll look to the committee to make a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Hill here. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we have the staff report in front of us. I’ll take this opportunity to ask Council, or sorry, committee if they have any technical questions for staff at this time. Seeing none, I will go to the applicant.

If you’re here, if you could please let us know your name and you have five minutes. Thank you and through you, Chair. Good afternoon committee members, staff and members of the public. My name is Taylor Bridges and I’m a planning consultant with the link of preamels.

Here on behalf of Oxford 7 Inc, the landowner of 1930 to 1940, Oxford Street East. First, I’d like to thank staff for their work on this project today. We’ve had the opportunity to review the report prepared by staff and appreciate their consideration of this application and their recommendation to move forward. I’m here today seeking this committee’s approval of the zoning bylaw amendment application.

And I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thanks for your time. Thank you, any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, I will go to the public now.

Is there anyone in the gallery that would like to speak to this issue or this application? And I’ll also clear, is there anybody online or in rooms? Seeing that we have no one else that would like to speak to this application, I’ll look for the committee for motion to close. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

I’ll call the vote. I’m closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll go to the committee now for any questions, comments, motions, et cetera.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’d be happy to move the recommendation and I’ll wait for a seconder and then I’ll speak to it. Councillor, or Councillor Lewis is a seconder. We have it on the floor, comments or questions.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. It’s a recommendation just to increase the expanded uses so no work to be done on the exterior. So no public comments, happy to support it.

I do have a question through you around the CN. I know the tracks are very close to this property and it’s the applicant going to be doing a noise study or is that just a recommendation coming forward? Or is there, I just wanna better understanding how the tracks in this area are gonna be dealt with? Mr.

Mathers, through the chair, Mike Corby is here to be able to answer that question. Please go ahead through the chair. As there’s no new development pose at this time, there’s no need to address the tracks if they do a new development through site plan approval, then it can be addressed at that time. Councillor?

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that was the case and again, supportive of this going forward. Any other comments, questions? Councillor Lewis. Just very briefly, this is not in my ward, but it’s not far from my ward.

And for a number of years, this site has been underutilized. So expanding the allowable uses on the site can only be good because it opens up the opportunity to fill in those vacancies. So very supportive of this. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Any other comments or questions before I put this to a vote? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll move on to items for direction.

4.1 Arva Sanitary Servicing Agreement. And I will go to staff for a verbal presentation of this. Sure, thank you, and through the chair. So in early 2000, the city received a request from Middlesex Center to allow sanitary sewage flows to be directed to London’s system with all the related costs to be borne by the township.

This came about as a result of an environmental assessment of their servicing issues and options for dealing with faulty septic systems and illegal storm sewer connections that were contributing to the release of pollutants into Medway Creek. So as a result, a pump station was built and we entered into an agreement for the provision of services. This agreement included a number of provisions that limited the rate and magnitude of growth in the Arva settlement area. Annual and five year caps replaced on the number of units that could be added as well as a maximum allotted capacity.

At this time, Middlesex Center has requested that we amend the agreement to remove those annual and five year caps on the number of units. City staff consider this change to be acceptable. We are not considering a change to the maximum allocated capacity and have communicated that to Middlesex Center and that our sanitary collection system cannot accommodate any more than what is in the existing agreement. So this proposed amendment does not change operating costs for the city as Middlesex Center is charged at the same residential rate as London users.

Given that provincial policy statement encourages coordination among municipalities when considering growth related issues as well as impact upon public health and the environment and that the provision of sanitary servicing to communities outside of the city’s boundary conforms to the London plan. Staff recommend making this change to the servicing agreement. Today’s report recommends the delegation of authority to civic administration to make this change and to execute the amended agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I’ll go to the committee for comments or questions. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, if I may through you, I just have a question.

It just seems like yesterday this was in front of us and here we go again. I am supportive of the recommendation, but I do have a question since this agreement was put in place not to exceed the capacity. So what happens or when do we know we’re reaching that point and what does that process look like? Right now we’re fine, nothing changes, but eventually things will change and just would like to hear staff’s comments.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, we are monitoring those flows. That as Ms.

Ramaly mentioned, we do charge them for those flows. So we have the monitoring data to be able to know whether they’re getting close to that cap. And then as well, from a planning perspective, we would just be limiting into this initial agreement. So we do know that they have been undertaking some environmental assessment work to see what their plans will be for the future of our wastewater servicing.

And at this point, they’re not considering sending future flows to London. So that is the information we have at us today. Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that.

So it’s really, the metal sex would be directing the changes not so much as we’re just in agreement with the agreement that’s existing. Just make sure I understand what we’re doing here. Any other comments or questions or emotions? Councilor Ramaly?

Thank you and through you. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on this matter. I just wanted to find out. I know that we have a relationship in agreement with our regarding this, but I’m just wondering from the perspective of how the school boards are also involved, particularly there is a school centennial central public school, which is in this area.

And is on septic. And I know during the elementary being a former trustee being during the elementary boundary review that school could not accommodate more students from London. Therefore, students have in the holding zones had to go to schools that were about 20 to 25 minutes away. And I’m just wondering the reason that was given was because of the capacity and being on septic.

Is there any conversation that takes place with school boards around this topic as well? Thanks. Mr. Mathers.

Thank you. So through the chair, we don’t have any say on how Middlesex Center allocates their capacity. I also don’t know how their collection system is actually set up within their boundary so that if the school is even serviced, if there’s a sewer in front of them, that’s their own internal servicing to look at. We have not been approached from that perspective specifically about capacity for the school.

My understanding is this is for residential development, but again, that’s up to Middlesex Center. We provide an outlet and an agreement for an allotted capacity. And it’s really up to municipality what they do with that. If we were approached directly by the school board, by the municipality as a joint thing as for something specific to the school, that would be a different and separate conversation.

Councillor, any other comments or questions? Or motions? Councillor Hopkins. I’m not sure you’re looking for a motion.

I think we’d love to. I’m hoping to get something here. We have a look to it too. I’m with the motion.

Okay, thank you. I have a seconder, Councillor Hillier. Any other questions or comments for a call to vote? If the committee will permit me, I have just a question.

Under cons, potential loss of DC revenues to the city, unless appropriate payment for sanitary water servicing in lieu of these components of the city’s DC fee is negotiated. Now, do we have an agreement where we are getting revenue for this access to our system? Through the chair. So, of course, we wanna ensure that if there is revenue to be sought from the tellman charges perspective, I do recall that there was something in the agreement that spoke to that, but if that’s some direction that you want added, you are through this resolution, providing staff the direction to be able to go forward with negotiating that agreement.

So, if that’s an important key element, then I would highlight it in the resolution. So, I would like to add that to the motion that we will agree to having to do away with the five and 10 year contingent upon appropriate payment for sanitary and water servicing being in place as negotiated through city staff. To approve the five and 10 year agreements and inappropriate payment for sanitary and water servicing is negotiated through civil administration. Prove five and 10 years through water.

Yep, okay, yep. So, I can- I need to save this one when I can put it on the screen. Okay. So, I’ll just have the city clerk read out just to see portion that’s been amended to include those concerns.

Go ahead, please, Kurt. The first seat approved five and 10 year agreements, pending appropriate payment for sanitary and water servicing as negotiated through civic administration. If that’s okay with the mover and the seconder, any other comments or questions or I call the vote? I tell Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, I just make a suggestion about adding development charges related in payment just so that it actually speaks to development charges ‘cause for the most part, the work that’s there, they’ve paid for, but it’s the development charges corner, I think. Okay, I’ll have the clerk adjust it and then we’ll have it read out again to make sure that we’re on track. Approved five and 10 year agreements, pending appropriate payment for development charges as negotiated through civic administration.

Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Mathers? Through you, worship. It was just adding before the sanitary and water servicing so maintain that development charges for water and sanitary servicing.

Clerk, can you adjust that to understand? I know where you’re going with this, Mr. Mathers. And I think that’s value added.

So thank you for the clarification there. I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you. And so just for clarification, my understanding is Militech Center is paying the same rate that London is paying.

And I’m just wondering how come we don’t charge a little bit more for, since they’re not Londoners. I’m just curious. So I will, as it was, I think I came up with this thing. When we, I think when we say negotiations, I think that would, we would fall into that and I’m comfortable with staff personally, with them taking that in consideration when they negotiate this.

However, I will go to staff for a comment on your concerns there, Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, with any kind of service we provide, we just need to make sure that it’s actually supported with the data that allows us to make that charge. So if there was administration or extra administration that was required, then we would want to be able to recover those costs.

From my understanding, it’s a fairly simple process. It’s a bill similar to what any other Londoner would receive. So the costs, as such, are passed along in the farm water, the waters who are raised that everyone else pays. Councilor, okay.

So do we have, Mr. Mathers, do you have the revised motion in front of you, if you revise? Can you just double check to see if we’re on track? Okay.

All right, looks like I think we’ve got to work to where we wanted to go here. Everyone’s comfortable to move her in the seconder with the language. Seeing no other comments or questions, I will call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I will now move on to 4.2, which is a request for delegation status by Ms. Sapokowski, CEO of High Park BIA.

So I will look to the committee for a motion to allow the delegation, our councilor Hillier, moves it, seconder, councilor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Opposed in the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Ms.

Sapokowski, you have five minutes and the mic is yours. Good afternoon. I’m Donna Spakowski, the general manager and CEO for the High Park Business Improvement Association, speaking on behalf of the High Park BIA Board of Management. First, I would like to thank you for allowing me to say a few words about our request for a CIP review for the High Park area.

24 years ago, the High Park Business Association worked closely with the city of London to engage with both community members and businesses to establish the official High Park community plan. The official plan was a well thought out document with the community design placing emphasis on the development of a mixed use hamlet in High Park, while proposing it to be a designated business district. It was envisioned to be a high activity area featuring street scaping and building orientation to create a pedestrian friendly mixed use area where people can live, work, and shop. The community plan did result with High Park in Gainesville Roads being designated as main streets, which now lives in the current London plan.

In reaction to, and because of the extension road widening along the High Park Road in 214 to 15, fear that the High Park hamlet running across Gainesville Road where it crosses High Park Road would be lost. Spond the then business association to pursue their BIA designation. With the thinking of BIA could work with the city to establish and utilize CIP tools, which would be integral to the regeneration and development of the High Park hamlet along Gainesville Road. However, the High Park community regeneration investigation reports submitted to council in August of 219 did not recommend a CIP.

The study determined that High Park is a prosperous area and should not need the financial tools to incentivize entrepreneurs and small business owners to establish the High Park hamlet. However, it’s important to note that the regeneration plan did not address development of a hamlet along Gainesville Road, which is what we were asking for at that time. And while we agree there are significant developer investments along High Park Road, the same cannot be said for Gainesville Road. Gainesville Road is not High Park Road.

During a public participation meeting held in February 2020 regarding the now under construction misused development taking place at this corner, a senior planner identified that while both High Park and Gainesville Road are considered arterial, High Park Road is considered more important. Quoting, Gainesville Road didn’t seem to be a market for commercial frontage to extend. So a design compromise through a zoning amendment was made to allow residential to the main floor. Coming from a senior planner, this tells developers there’s no reason to invest along Gainesville Road, a statement that is inconsistent with the recommendations made in the 219 regeneration report, and further substantiating that a developer market does not exist when it comes to establishing the hamlet along Gainesville Road.

Having said that over the last number of years, there has been ongoing conversations with this developer, HLH investments, and through his support of the High Park hamlet vision, he decided to incorporate first floor retail along Gainesville Road after all. However, the developer continues to stress that there is no interest from the developer world to invest on Gainesville Road. This is evident by the lack of businesses establishing along Gainesville Road. Since 2017, only a handful of new businesses have popped up along Gainesville Road compared to the dozens that have been established along the High Park Road.

We really wanna stress that Gainesville Road isn’t High Park Road. The Northwest area of London is absolutely saturated with a residential development boom, and with that comes opportunity to build economic diversity throughout the community. In the next five years, we anticipate over 10,000 residents to move into the area. Much of this development will be with a walking distance to the Hamlet on Gainesville Road.

London CIP areas work to help building unique characteristics of our main streets across the city. This is no different for the Hamlet on Gainesville Road. Similar to other BIA’s with CIPs, we need the city’s help. Help to help us develop the character and support infrastructure of the Hamlet.

In turn, this will give opportunities to support numerous small diverse shops, both retail and services to thrive in the Hamlet along Gainesville Road. This asks us to support it not just by the High Park Board of Management, but by five letters of support that are in your package, and by additional letters emailed out to you a few hours ago, including a last-minute letter of support from HLH Investments. In closing, the vision for the High Park Hamlet is a vision for businesses and community along Gainesville Road. The High Park BIA is respectfully requesting from members of the Planning and Environment Committee to approve that a CIP be referred to staff through the five-year CIP review report.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the delegation before we close the, well, I don’t have to close it, I’m sorry. Any questions for the delegation, or are the comments or questions for staff?

Council knows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to our delegation, I sit on the Argyle BIA board.

Our board through its own levy has developed a facade improvement program, paid for by the businesses, for the businesses. Well, we have a CIP that has been approved by Council for the Argyle area, the scoping of Dundas Street. That is funds that have been advanced specifically for public space enhancement. So I’d like to ask our delegate, what financial incentives the Hyde Park BIA is using its surplus for to address issues outlined in this that they’re hoping for financial support from the city for things like a facade improvement loan program, when other BIA’s are funding that through their levy.

Ms. Sapakowski, would you like to— Certainly, thank you for the question. I don’t know if I have a ready answer for that other than to say that the Hyde Park BIA does invest significantly into the infrastructure already within the BIA. We have Hyde Park Village Green, which is a $100,000 investment over and above other investments going into that park.

The Hyde Park BIA board of directors, I am confident to say would be quite happy to work with a CIP hand in hand with our also helping to top up or fund things like the thought improvements. Councillor, other comments or questions? Committee or visiting Councillors? Councillor ramen.

Thank you and through you. Thank you, Donna and to the Hyde Park BIA for their work, furthering investment growth in the Northwest part of London. You would have received letters, as Donna mentioned, from many BIA members as well as other community leaders. Many of who have poured a lot of time and attention into Hyde Park Road and now would like to see the same in the Gainesboro Road area.

Hyde Park has grown rapidly over the past decade. As you’ve read over this time, there have been little to no activity and investment in this hamlet during this time. This is not going to happen on its own. The goal is to achieve the vision in the approved community plan to make this area more vibrant, walkable and charming, a new destination point in the area.

For those unfamiliar with the area, there is a lot of new single family housing in the area close to Hyde Park in Gainesboro and walking distance to a number of high rises, multiple new townhouses and residential towers are planned. Further up Gainesboro is Limber lost area, community housing, the library insured for a small and the Northwest London Resource Center. This request supports the continued growth by setting the conditions for new small businesses. I ask you to support the referral today to help to align this request with the five year CIP and financial incentive review.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or motions? Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you for your presentation. I know you have a very strong BIA in the Hyde Park area. And I know we had a report back in April 2019 and you spoke to the recommendation that came out of that where Hyde Park was demonstrating quite a lot of success and didn’t meet the test of a community improvement plan at the time. And I know we’re back in 2023 and maybe through you to the chair.

I’d like to go to staff just to have a general idea of where we are today in understanding the Hyde Park community and just would like to hear some comments from staff. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, we are currently undertaking a five year review of the CIP process and our group has been working with the various BIA’s to try to gain what they think would be valuable in their areas so that we can bring back some discussion to council as far as some recommendations as well.

So the plan is to bring something forward to council in the second quarter of 2023. So this is very timely to receive this information to be able to support where we were being back to council. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that.

And I do have a motion prepared. I’d like to put it on the floor for the committee and just understanding CIPs in the Lambeth area. We undertook a CIP about eight years ago and it took many, many years. And a lot of what I learned about a CIP is the CIP undertakes the test does the metrics to determine what is needed in the area.

And that’s something that I think is really, really important to have a better understanding. First of all, if there’s a need and if it meets the test and with that, I would like to put the motion on the floor that the January 31st, 2023 correspondence from the Hyde Park business improvement association be referred to the CIP and financial incentives program five year to review the review being undertaken by civic administration to assess the feasibility of the Hyde Park Hamlet as a candidate for a CIP. And I think I’d like to really stress the feasibility and the undertaking to see if it warrants that as staff are already undertaking all the CIPs and looking forward, especially with the Lambeth one coming back is to see how effective they have been and where we need to go with the CIP. And I think it is an opportunity to be very respectful of the resources that are available to us at the time and to sort of combine everything.

And with that, I’m hoping I do have a seconder in Councilor Frank and I’d like to put the motion on the floor. Councilor Frank, do a second. So we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll open the floor and we’ll go to Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair and through you. I’m certainly happy to support referring this into the five year review that civic administration are already undertaking. I, too, I most wish we could bold it, feasibility. Because when I read the letter from the Hyde Park BIA, you know, I will say with all due respect and Ms.

Bukowski knows I respect her, we worked on many, many things and talked about many different opportunities. The financial incentives piece is a bit of a concern to me. When I start seeing things like tax rebates and development charge waves, I won’t be supporting that if that comes back as the recommendation. In one of the fastest growing areas of the city and we all are well aware of how important development charges are to paying for the infrastructure that is required.

I would not be supporting that in terms of new builds. However, if there was some opportunity to give the BIA a little more say and perhaps some support from our planning staff in terms of how the streetscape looks, what that pedestrian friendly environment looks like to help craft the feel of the neighborhood a bit more and ensure that that’s preserved. That I can certainly be more supportive of. But when I do look at what was provided in the communication, I will just say I’m a little bit concerned when I see language like tax rebates and development charges being waived.

That’s not something I will support, but I do want to hear a little bit more about the feasibility around some of the things like a facade improvement program, and certainly as Ms. Bukowski indicated that she’s happy to take back to her board. I hope the board is willing to put some of their skin in the game as well, because this can’t be the public sector paying for private improvements. The private sector needs to step up on that as well.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, no, I just want to follow up with Deputy Mayor’s comments.

I really do appreciate, he’s very frank sometimes, and I do agree, we have a number, we have eight CIPs out there, and as we start to move things around and change things for certain CIPs, I think it creates a lot of uncertainty, and we really need to make sure the area meets the test and then see what happens. These CIPs do come with a cost as well, and I think that’s the other part of the conversation that needs to happen as this goes forward and really looking forward to having staff’s report come back to us, I guess it will be around the second quarter of May, June, with the other CIPs and the comprehensive review that’s going on, so thank you. Thank you, before I call the vote, let’s call for all answer questions, then I’ll call the vote. Please end the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

Thank you, we have no deferred matters or additional business, and I’ll look for a motion for adjournment. Councillor Frank, second. All right, Councillor Lewis, hand vote, on favor. Thank you, adjourned, thanks folks.