March 20, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Building Division Monthly Report - January 2023

2023-03-20 Staff Report - Building Division Monthly Report - January 2023

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

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

Motion Passed

2.2   3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-02-16 ECAC Report 3

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 16, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-C04)

Motion Passed

2.3   4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-03-08 CACP Report 4

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on March 8, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-C04)

Motion Passed

2.4   Wellington Corridor Secondary Plan - Terms of Reference

2023-03-20 Staff Report - Wellington Corridor Secondary Plan ToR

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Wellington Corridor Secondary Plan Terms of Reference, appended to the staff report dated March 20, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE ENDORSED. (2023-T05)

Motion Passed

2.5   19 Blackfriars Street - Heritage Alteration Permit Application (HAP23-011-L)

2023-03-20 Staff Report - Heritage Alteration Permit - 19 Blackfriars Street (HAP23-011-L)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval to replace the siding on the dwelling located at 19 Blackfriars Street, within the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

2.6   864 Hellmuth Avenue - Heritage Alteration Permit Application (HAP22-081-L)

2023-03-20 Staff Report - Heritage Alteration Permit - 864 Hellmuth Avenue

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the previous 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 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 PERMITTED as submitted in Appendix C with the following terms and conditions:

a) consideration be given to the use of permeable pavers for the paving material to reduce the landscape impact of the new driveway; and,

b)  landscaping be planted adjacent to the driveway to visually screen the parking area, consistent with the parking policies and guidelines included within the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Conservation District Plan;

it being noted that the proposed portable, temporary accessibility ramp does not require a Building Permit or Heritage Alteration Permit. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve the staff recommendation with a revised part a):

“a) the applicant be required to use a permeable option, such as gravel or permeable pavers, for the paving material to reduce the environmental and heritage landscape impact of the new driveway; and,“

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   455 Highbury Avenue North (Z-9564)

2023-03-20 Staff Report - 455 Highbury Avenue North (Z-9564)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Highbury Self Storage Equities Limited, relating to the property located at 455 Highbury Avenue North, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 20, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 4, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a General Industrial (GI1) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(_)) Zone;

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

-    T. Brydges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

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

  •    the proposed amendment will assist in transitioning the area to lighter industrial uses which are appropriate for the existing mixed-use landscape. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   247 Halls Mill Road - Demolition Request to Remove Heritage Attributes

2023-03-20 Staff Report - Demolition Request - Heritage Property - 247 Halls Mills Road

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 request to remove heritage attributes from the property at 247 Halls Mill Road, pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, BE APPROVED subject to the following terms and conditions:

a) the use of machinery BE PROHIBITED in the demolition or removal of the accessory building’s debris;

b) the existing brick and rubble stone foundation shall BE RETAINED and BE PROTECTED in situ until Municipal Council decision following receipt of the recommendation of the Conservation Review Board; and,

c) the removal of the debris BE COMPLETED in accordance with the demolition plan on file with the City;

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

  • J. McLeod; and,

  • D. Park. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:08 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, 17 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone, it’s four o’clock. I want to begin the fifth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. Please check the city website for additional meeting of 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 Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenawapaywalk, and Edwanda Run. 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, Metis, and Inuit people today. As representatives of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

Now ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I would like to move on to the consent items. I’m aware of the desire of one of the committee members to pull 2.4, and we will move that to deferred matters and additional business after our PPMs later this afternoon. Are there any other items that committee members would like to see pulled?

Okay, I’ll open the floor now for comments, questions of staff regarding the remaining consent items, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6. Councillor Hopkins. I just have a question. Is 2.6 being pulled as well?

No, it’s not. It’s not? My apologies. I gave the wrong, I gave the wrong item.

Thank you, Councillor. 2.6 is the one I meant to say, not 2.4. Thank you for catching that error. Thank you for that clarification.

I do have a couple of questions on two items, then if I can proceed. Please go ahead, Councillor. So my first question is on 2.1, which is the Building Division Monthly Report. I think we are always interested in hearing how we’re doing with getting these permits out the door.

I do have a question through you, Chair, to staff about our staffing and how we’re doing with our staffing. I know there’s always a desire to do more, but I’d just like to have an idea where we are. The staff on that? Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and through you to Councillor Hopkins’ question, I can say that while we do continue to have vacancies in our building inspection area, we are down to two vacancies at this point in time. And as of last Monday, we’ve had three new staff that were hired, two plan building inspectors and one architectural plan examiner. So you may have heard me say in the past that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think that light is getting just a little bit bigger.

Councillor. I’m glad that light is getting larger. Thank you very much, Mr. Kacorus, for the update.

I do have another question on consent item number 2.4, which is the Wellington Corridor Secondary Plan, the terms of reference, that we are going to be endorsing here. And I am a big fan of secondary plans, but I do have a question as we undertake the terms of reference. I understand there’s going to be community engagement to follow, but as I look at the area of the secondary plan, I wonder if staff can just maybe add to the work that’s needed along the Wellington Corridor, especially as it relates to the Westminster Pawns. I’m not sure if there’s community or what stakeholders are going to be part of that engagement.

I think it’s a very sensitive area, but I’d like to know a little bit more how that’s going to come about as we go through the process. Okay, I’ll go to staff on regarding community engagement. Through the chair. So this is really just launching the project in a sense with the terms of reference.

So we will do a circulation to all of the properties that fit within that 150 meters from the center line. And as part of the project once we get going, we will be looking at technical studies. So if there is anything that needs to be looked at from a natural heritage perspective, we will be doing that as part of the study. Councillor.

Thank you for that information. So right now it’s not part of the terms of reference, but we’ll be looking at that as we go forward. I just wanted to make sure I understood the process and looking forward to that community process going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions or I call the vote? I’d like to just make a comment from the chair regarding the secondary plan. I’m glad to see this is coming about.

It’s the last council had pushed this forward. We already have one major project on Wellington. I’m thinking and I’m hoping that this is the beginning. We’re going to see more.

And I think it’s going to help developers to know exactly the rules of engagement on how we do it. When we first approved this leg of BRT, it was the intention to facilitate traffic coming from the south and down to our core. And it’s funny how things have changed. We see remote working, changing work, and traffic as such with core, regards to the core.

But we’ve also seen major developments happening on the south end with Amazon, Maple Leaf Foods, and now Volkswagen. So I see this as a very fortunate, this isn’t a works ‘cause I’m seeing with the high-intensity development we’re seeing in the core, there could be a reverse migration of those folks coming from the core going south. And perhaps the potential there for private shuttles to get to these major places of employment as well being the major river for those connecting to facilitate labor for these new developments on the economic front. So just a comment on where this could go and how that might influence planning, the secondary plan as the sands constantly shift.

So if there are no other comments or questions. All right, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I’m sorry, Councilor Palosa, I wasn’t looking at my screen.

Please go ahead. Thank you, Councilor Hill, you’re also had his hand up earlier too. So you might have several of us. Thank you for recognizing me at your committee.

My comments were also in regards to item 2.4 for the Wellington Corridor secondary plan. As I know, this was an item that we advocated for at the last council term to be brought forward due to the BRT construction or higher order transit. My question through you to staff is if approved, it’s saying that it will take, so I guess I’m really looking at this project and how the plan is coming back. It says completed by the third quarter of 2024 and that realizing construction implementation for the Wellington Gateway Project is scheduled to begin in 2023 and take three years to complete.

So that’s 2026 of just looking at the timing of this report at the end of 2024 and construction going on, how does the secondary plan meet up with the construction that we’re doing? I’ll go to staff through the chair. So the secondary plan is really a paper exercise, if you will. So we’re not actually building anything.

So it will be happening concurrently to the construction of the rapid transit. Where possible, we’ll look to kind of coordinate any consultation that might be happening and look for those opportunities. But ultimately, there’ll be a lot of technical studies required. So those do extend, working with consultants does kind of extend that timeline for us.

And we do have Jenny Dan from the rapid transit office if she has anything to add about timing. Ms. Dan, do you want to weigh into the councilor’s questions? Yes, and thank you through the chair.

Just to build on Ms. O’Hagan’s comments, the design for our rapid transit projects is moving forward and we’re coordinating to address both lifecycle and growth needs as we move forward. So we can’t predict how all the parcels will develop in the future, but we do know the intensification and density objectives that are in the London plans. We’re making sure we’re accounting for that.

And so we’ll be taking in as many foresight as we can and are doing our design approach so that the two processes will link up well at the end. Councillor Palazzo. Thank you. Hopefully just one final call to question to Ms.

O’Hagan or Ms. Dan. Having obviously been being the word councilor for one side of Wellington Road and having heard from developers and developments already come to that area as we look through the technical studies and we’re talking about lifecycle and growth needs, will we make sure that that land serviced for potential high intensity development of apartments and things going forward as we build out the BRT? I’ll go to staff.

Yes, through the chair, we will be accommodating growth in our designs to make sure that the mainline sewers can accommodate any intensification that happens along the core due to transit oriented development. And then also from a servicing perspective, going forward, we can’t avoid all potential service road cuts for new connections and new development. And that’s something that we may see, but we’ll look for ways to mitigate that. In some cases, we can service off of side streets and avoid having to disrupt the newly constructed road, but we’re definitely planning for that as we go.

Councillor Palazzo. No, thank you to Ms. Dan and Ms. O’Hagan for their information as it’s great that developers are reaching out and asking these questions and we can provide insights that were on it.

So thank you very much. Councillor Hill here, please go ahead. Yes, thank you, your question regarding 2.1 the report. I truly like these, it shows the trends of which direction building is going right now, but it is showing me a bit of a concern here because we’re being asked by the province to come up with 47,000 new homes in the next 10 years that we’re looking at a downward trend.

And I’m wondering how many homes per year are we going to have to produce or have built to meet the provincial standard when I’m looking at numbers representing one month of an 81.6% downturn in single builds? Not too sure if staff can give you that precise forecast. I know, not to say I’m just curious because I’m looking at the number going, okay, it seems to be going up exponentially. I will ask staff to maybe comment on concerns of trends versus ultimate goals down the road, 10-year goals.

Through the chair, very good question. So through the previous work that we brought back to council, we stated that we were creating a housing supply action plans. We’re actually having that first meeting next week with industry stakeholders to be able to come up with that plan for council. And we want to bring that back and have endorsement of it eventually.

So very quick numbers is that it’s 47,000 units over 10 years, so that would be 4,700 units per year. So we know we’re not going, we haven’t done that historically. So we’re going to have to ramp that up over time. And part of this development of this plan is going to be coming up with metrics and showing how we can get there.

So we are one part of being able to move forward more units and it’s going to take ourselves and also the development building industry being able to ramp up to be able to meet those targets. Councilor Hayley. - And thank you. And you’re meeting with them next week.

So when will we be receiving that report? Staff. That’s a great question. So right now we’re planning to have something back to council like an actual action plan by the end of this year.

So that’s the idea. I believe we’re actually talking, speaking with the group about that next week. And that’s our target. And I think it’s even in itself, it’s fairly ambitious, but I think we can meet it.

Councilor Hayley. - Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

And I will call the vote. I apologize, I’m looking for a mover and a seconder. Councilor Hopkins and Councilor Frank. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. I’ll move on to scheduled items. 3.1 is a public participation meeting regarding 455 Library Avenue. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to open the VPM Councilor Frank.

A second please, Councilor Lewis. Excuse me, don’t we have 2.6 still to do? No, we will be moving that to the, down to five deferred matters. Sorry about that.

That is our practice to move any pulled consent items to at the end of the day. So we have a mover and a seconder to open the PPM, I will call that vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

And we have the staff report in front of us. Are there any technical questions from the committee at this time for our staff? Okay, I will move now to the applicant. I would the applicant like to address the committee?

Can everyone hear me okay? I can please give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And 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 preamma limited. Here on behalf of Highbury self-storage equity is limited. The landowners of 455 Library Avenue North.

First, I would like to thank staff for their work on this project to date. We’ve had the opportunity to carefully review the report prepared by staff and we appreciate their consideration and their recommendation for approval. Just for some background, this site has not vacant for the better part of the last two decades. Our clients are very excited about this project and are looking to make a considerable investment by introducing a compatible use to the area that will revitalize the existing building.

And the investment is not only in the proposed use at the site itself, they’ve inherited some environmental issues such as contamination, which they are remedying and they’re looking to make some enhancements to the site where they’ve noted unauthorized use of the lands for criminal activity that has been taking place. Moving forward, introducing this use and tidying up the lands will be to the benefit of the wider neighborhood and the community as a whole and could be a catalyst for redevelopment in this area going forward. So I’m here today seeking a positive endorsement from this committee and I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

I’ll look to the committee to see if they have any questions of the applicant right now, Councillor Frank. Thank you and through the chair, I was just curious. I noticed that it looked like there was some green space to the south end of the property and I didn’t really notice any comments. So I’m just wondering if that is being retained and being kept as green space.

Ms. Bridges. Through you, Mr. Chair, thank you.

That’s a great question. The green space, as it sits currently, is kind of a hotspot first of less than desirable activity on the lands. There has been some technical studies from landscape consultants as to that area and there hasn’t been, there are any significant species in that area. So part of our client’s plans, maybe to clear out that area and tidy it up, but it’s not determined right now what will happen with that area.

Councillor. Thank you. And through the chair, yeah, and I’m not really sure I haven’t gone walk by this site. So I’m not really sure how much canopy or how many trees or any of that matter, but I’m just wondering if the client maybe has considered putting up fencing around the area and like retaining the green space if you’ve had that discussion with them.

Ms. Bridges. Through you, Mr. Chair.

So currently there is no end user signed on for the use. So in terms of fencing or other securities that will be determined at a later time once an end user has signed on in the determined. Councillor. Thank you.

And I’ve staff questions. Should I wait for this? Just why don’t we wait until we finish the PPM and then we can go further into it. Any other questions technical in the nature of the applicant?

Okay, I’ll go to there anybody in the gallery that would like to speak to this and check with the clerk, is there anyone online? Seeing none, I’ll look for the committee to make a motion and second to close PPM. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Frank. We’ll call the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. From the floor now to committee members, Councillor Frank. Thank you. And through the chair to staff, I’m wondering is there any way through any provisions that we are able to ensure the green space or comparable green space is maintained in that location?

Go to staff on that. To the chair, we actually are unfortunately not able to do that as this application will not be going through site plan, which is usually when that process would be done through. Councillor, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Chair.

Just as a follow up to the questions that Councillor Frank had through you, do we know if this building is vacant at the moment? Go to staff. Through the chair, it is our understanding that the building is vacant at this time. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. And through you, I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation on this. I’m quite familiar with this property. While it’s not in my ward, it’s very close.

I certainly understand where the applicant’s comments are coming from in terms of some of the less than desirable, sometimes less than legal uses of the property are coming from. It has been an area of some neighborhood concern and so redevelopment here is a positive for the community. So I’m very happy to see that there is a plan for this and I’m willing to get that motion on the floor so we can frame any further discussion around that. So I’ll look for a seconder.

We have a motion made. Councillor Hopkins seconds. Any other comments or questions? Councillor Frank.

Thank you. And one follow up, I guess, through you to staff. I am just wondering, is there, is this not, is there any way that we can protect the trees? I know, again, through site plan is mentioned that we don’t have that ability.

I guess I’m just wondering, is this in like a tree preservation area or if there is any language we have in any of our bylaws that would try to get compensation for the loss of the canopy or any other further ways that we could try and either save or be compensated for the loss of the trees? I’ll go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, this is in those lands that you’ve identified are within a tree protection area.

So they would be captured under the tree protection bylaw. Councillor. Thank you. And so if these trees are in a tree protection area, then are they unable to be taken down?

Staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, they would have to go through the bylaw permitting process. So it would come through our urban forestry operations group.

They’d have to pray a permit fee and compensation or whatever the measures are. But it would be through a separate group, recognizing that normally if it was going to go through site plan, it would be coming through the planning and development office. Councillor. Thank you, yes, it makes me feel better, thanks.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I just thought I should mention as well. And I can’t speak to the specific numbers, obviously.

But I know that some of the other properties in this particular area, especially along the CN rail corridor, some of the species there are not native species. They’re in fact invasive species, things like buckthorn and plants of that nature. So really in removing some of these may actually be a benefit in clearing out some of those invasive species that are intruding on some of our native species in those habitats. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

We have a motion and it’s been seconded, so I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to 3.2, this is regarding 247 Hall’s Mill Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM, Councillor Frank and seconder, Councillor Lewis, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any technical questions for staff at this time we have their report. Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant. If the applicant would like to address the committee, we don’t see the applicant online.

I’ll give you a second to make yourself known. If not, I will continue on to public. Okay, we’ll move on to the public. Anyone in the gallery would like to speak to this.

Please, sir, give us your name and address if you so wish and you have five minutes. My name is John McLeod. My wife and I are the owners of 247 Hall’s Mill Road. The wall that’s in question is at the north end of the old barn and the three other sides of the barn there is no wall, so it’s only just small portion of the wall under the barn.

And just my question is for the heritage planner. And it’s what is the reason or the purpose of wanting to designate a crumbling old barn wall that is on private property and you can’t see from the street, maybe. My other question is maybe you just want to be the first one to ever designate a foundation wall in the province. Thank you, sir.

Any other, I will ask that of our staff once we complete the PPM. I’ve seen no other folks in the gallery would like to speak. Clerk, I’ll ask if there’s anybody online. Debbie Park.

Ms. Park, please state your name and address if you so wish and you have five minutes. We can hear you. Yes, okay, thank you.

My name is Debbie Park and I live at 1288 Hall’s Mill Place, London, Ontario. I’d like to thank the chair and members of the planning environment committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of many of the residents of Hall’s Mill Road in the surrounding area. We are all aware that the property owner at 247 Hall’s Mill Road had the historic red barn bulldozed in the dark in January 2020. Hall’s Mill Road is a no-exit street.

So since that night, we have had to drive by the wreckage, which has been a stark reminder of what we have lost. This was a historic magnificent structure, a one-of-a-kind landmark in a neighborhood that is on the list to be designated a historic neighborhood by the city of London. We are all in agreement that keeping the foundation is the bare minimum that should be done because of this devastating loss. You can see it from the street.

My community members have asked me to present their ideas of what they feel should be done along with saving whatever remains of the foundation are left. One, have an intensive archaeological dig done of the entire site. Two, place a historical plaque near the road in front of where the structure was with photo or illustration and historical facts and descriptions of the building. So it can be read by the public.

Three, have a smaller replica of the building made from the materials from the original barn and placed on the inside of the foundation area. Or four, have plantings placed inside or around the remaining foundation. And five, salvage the wood, which is chestnut and have it donated to Fanshawe Pioneer Village to be used for historic building repairs. Several of the neighbors wanted me to address concerns that for three years, the site has never been safely secured.

There has been no safety tape or fencing placed around the remains. Glass, nails, wood, and other construction debris have been a safety hazard for people and animals, especially considering a portion of the barn was on a neighbor’s property. Finally, I wish to express our anger and frustration and disappointment with this entire process. Has this incident at 247 Halsnell Road set a precedent which could further endanger the future of remaining historical properties locally and province-wide?

Too many historic buildings have, quote, “burned down,” been left to rot or bulldoze down. I’d like to end with a quote by Phil Robynitz, a U.S. study done from the Land Institute, which says, “As suburban sprawl and roadside development makes more and more places look the same, it becomes important for communities to keep their identities. Historic buildings can help to define a community and hint at its past.

It gives a sense of history that can contribute to community pride. Personally, I feel we all need to do a better job at saving our past.” Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Park.

Are there any others online? Do you know others that would like to address the committee? I’ll look for a motion to close. Councillor Hopkins, and a seconder, please.

Councillor Hillier, I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. There was a question raised in the PPM that I’ll go to staff on. The question was, what is the reasoning behind reconsideration of heritage with the state of the building now with one wall and foundation?

Thank you, through the chair. The intent for keeping the foundation is to ensure that the city and the applicant can continue to have a useful appeal proceeding at the Conservation Review Board. As noted in the staff report, the foundation of the barn that was previously on the property is considered a heritage attribute of the property. It is still intact until the Conservation Review Board can provide an opinion or recommendation or advice to council.

It’s staff’s opinion that the heritage attribute is still intact. It is still a heritage attribute of the property. So it’s to ensure that that process can still play out. Thank you, I’ll open the floor now to committee members at Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to follow up with a question through you. It’s more of a technical question about the process.

I know the community members spoke about ideas and thoughts, what should happen, but I think it’s also important that the community understand the process that we’re in with right now, why we are asking for this permit and how we move forward through you. I’ll go to staff on that. Thank you. Through the Chair, the process right now is the property, the designation of the property under the Ontario Heritage Act has been appealed to the Conservation Review Board.

And just one thing I’ll note, this application of the designation and the demolition took place prior to Bill 108. So the Conservation Review Board was the body that heard appeals to designations at that time. Now, post Bill 108, there’s a two-step process for objections and appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The important takeaway here is that the Conservation Review Board provides advice to City Council, whereas the OLT or the Ontario Land Tribunal makes a binding decision on a heritage status of a property.

So the Council, City Council still has ultimately the decision on the cultural heritage value of this property. The demolition application and the demolition process, the intent of that is to remove that debris so that we can continue having that conversation between the city and the applicant’s legal representation at the Conservation Review Board so that they can provide advice back to City Council. Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that information.

I think it’s really important that the community understand, making their comments on where to go forward. We’re not there yet, but the conversation will continue once it comes back to Council and we’ll go forward after the review board has made a decision. Thank you for that. I do have comments.

I don’t know if you’d like to hear my comments now, but happy to hear from committee members too. I’ll go, I’ll just do a quick check to see if any other committee members have a comment. Councillor Hill here, please go ahead. Yes, thank you for recognizing.

Yes, I do remember this. This is going back quite a while now. I remember when the barn came down. I remember that they actually had an approval, a demolition approval, with the previous leadership of the Heritage Group.

If I do remember, I believe that was correct. And then it got overturned and this has been changed. So now we’re trying to save an existing brick and rubble stone foundation. I’m trying to see the end purpose of all this.

So they go in there and expensively remove all of this debris by hand. And then this is to save a chunk of rubble, brick and stone foundation on private property. What is possible end use for this? Where’s the value added to the land owner?

I just, I don’t understand this. If someone could explain it to me, what the end use of this could possibly bleed an existing brick and rubble stone foundation? You can’t use it as a tourism asset. We’re gonna put a plaque on it that someone can’t visit on private property.

I’m just, I don’t wanna waste people’s time and more money moving this forward in this way. So I’m just wondering what is the end use for this when it’s all done? I’ll go to staff. You did touch on this earlier with the question from the— - I know, thank you.

But maybe a thorough response to the councilor’s question, please. Thank you. Through the chair, as noted the intent in retaining the foundation in situ for the time being is to ensure that that conservation and review board advice can play out. If the advice is that the foundation still is a heritage attribute that represents cultural heritage value of the property, ultimately it would be up to council to decide whether it is still representative of the cultural heritage value that was previously there with the barn.

In terms of potential reuse, there are commemorative measures that could be done in the province. There are other municipalities that have identified and designated ruins that have represented significant cultural heritage resources. Those are just some of the possibilities that would be identified at a later stage. Councilor.

Sorry, but for me, I keep going right to the end use and going, it just seems like an awful lot of wasted money and meetings to get to a point we’re looking at a chunk of wall and a piece of foundation on a private piece of property. And I’m thinking back to the last six years of report, sorry, four years of reports. And I’m wondering should a motion be put forth to allow the demolition to remove the existing brick and rubble stove foundation with automated equipment would something like that be a permissible at this time? If you don’t mind council, I’m gonna let staff reply and I’m gonna conferring with a clerk as well on possibility of your motion.

Please go ahead. Thank you through the chair. In regards to the conservation or view board process, keeping that foundation, as I mentioned it’s a, until the conservation or view board provides advice that is considered a heritage attribute of the property. Removing or using, I suppose, machinery to remove the debris does have that potential to potentially result in further damage to the existing foundation, which could prejudice any outcomes or advice from the conservation review board.

There’s also just to add to, as a part of this application, a demolition plan was submitted by the applicant or was required as a part of a complete application. The foundation retaining in situ was part of that demolition plan that was submitted. So the applicant’s legal representation has reviewed that as well as prior to submitting that application to the city. Councilor.

Just the whole thing feels like a penalty being opposed on the person for removal of that shed. And if this, I’m just trying to think, has the heritage group ever approved a designation on a foundation wall on a private property before? I’m just looking for a precedent, anything. I’ll go to staff.

Have we ever faced this before? And what has been the outcome? Thank you through the chair. I mean, technically any foundation wall could be included in a designation.

One that’s of maybe a similar example, although of a different status, would be the remains of the foundations of the Western counties and health and occupation center. In the Western Pawns area, those are the foundations of the former buildings are still in situ. It’s a heritage listed property identified as a cultural heritage landscape on the city’s register of cultural heritage resources. But that’s one example, Councilor.

Well, I’m not sure I move forward with this because I honestly, I do not see an end use for this. And I think we’re just putting people through the ringer and making a lot more money go away when we should be concentrating on homelessness and other issues. I would like to put a motion forward, if I could, to allow the demolition to remove the existing wall because I think that any kind of piece of wall that’s gonna be left standing is gonna be a safety hazard. And they’re talking what safety has earlier.

Well, if we leave a piece of freestanding wall up, well, we have chunks of this and downtown London that we’ve had to have large braces put up against. So I think I would approve the demolition, but please remove the portion of freestanding wall as well. Well, the clerk is working on the wording. I’m gonna go to committee to see if you have a seconder for this motion.

And if you want to wait until you see the actual motion up, that’s fine as well, sit up. The motion is up for if anybody would like to second the motion. I don’t see a seconder for that counselor. So I will go back to the main, we still do not have a motion on the floor.

We have a staff recommendation. I’ll go back to committee for their direction here, Councillor Hopkins. That’s not what I said. That’s not what was asked.

Excuse me, Councillor Hillier. I’m sorry, just wanna ask the modification was that the demolition be approved with the inclusion of the freestanding wall section. It’s from a safety concern, like if you’re gonna call safety, well, that is a safety concern, not with the machinery. Okay, I’ll go back to committee with that clarification from the Councilor.

Is there a seconder for his motion? I do not see a seconder, Councillor. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a quick question through you to staff, just following my colleagues’ comments. I wanna just make sure I understand the process that has taken place the past three and a half, four years.

We have not approved a demolition request for the red barn. I just wanna make sure there was a reference that there was a demolition that was approved, but I just wanna make sure. I’ll go to staff in the history. Have we approved a demolition at some point?

Thank you through the chair. In 2008, there was a demolition permit for the property for the red barn. That permit was revoked following an action in, I believe, 2009. The legal input we received during this, the most recent demolition application in 2009, 2020, sorry, 2019 and 2020 was that the process needed to restart again.

So as a part of this demolition application, there’s not been an approval from Council. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you for that. I know there’s a long history to the story of the red barn.

And I think it’s really important that we do get the facts and any outstanding concerns or questions that we may have. We should really understand where we’ve been and where we are now, especially within the past four years. So thank you for that. With that, I’m happy to make some comments.

If the chair will allow me, committee and first of all, I do wanna say, it is a sad day for heritage in our city. I know we had one of the heritage buildings in the psychiatric area, the buildings there around Oxford and Highbury, fire and it just really is a sad day every time the fire happens in one of our historic buildings. I do wanna talk about this area because Homsmills is a really important part of the beginning of, it’s the beginning of Byron. And it is gonna be looked at as a cultural heritage district.

And I think it’s really important when we have heritage districts looked at that we have some buildings remaining that add to the significance of the beginning of Byron. There’s a long, long history to 47 Homsmills. But I just wanna start with the past three and a half, four years. In December 13, and I hope committee members will give me some room here, ‘cause I think as a new council, we really have to try to understand these applications and a bit of history.

And I’d like to go through a bit of history on this application. So in December 13, 2019, there was a demolition request that came forward. And latch, sorry, the former CACP was consulted and issued an intention to designate and council advised to designate in January 8, 2020, council supported the intention to designate. January 30, 2020, the accessory building, we know it is the red barn, building on the property was demolished by the owner without municipal council’s approval.

The appeal received by the city, there was an appeal received by the city on February the 24th, 2020. And it referred to the Conservation Review Board on March the 11th, 2020. In May, the owner and the city agreed that the debris on the site would need to be removed in order to identify the extent of the remaining foundation. In the meantime, legal proceedings were resolved in 2021, and the property owner entered a guilty plea and a fine was levied.

The city and owner working together towards a process to remove the debris in order to proceed at the review board. And I think it’s really, really important that we understand where we’ve come from and why we are here today. And we’re here today to proceed with the removal, the demolishing, the removal of the debris and demolishing permit is being requested to make that happen. And I am very supportive of staff’s recommendation to do so.

Do have a couple of questions though. In the report, it does talk about the owner being responsible to remove the debris. And I know the demolition plan is important here. And I have a question around the notification to the community when that is going to happen.

So I know there’s no notification, but I would like to know if the city does have an opportunity to monitor or to follow up with the demolition plan. I think it’s really important that the community has that reassurance or an understanding given the history of this property. So my question is around the city’s efforts or can the city monitor through the demolition plan process? We’ll go to staff on the councilor’s question, concerns.

Thank you. Through the chair, staff do have the ability to enter the property through this application process and through a demolition permit. I have the ability to enter the property to inspect, to ensure that the terms and conditions of the demolition are being met. That is something that we would do at staff’s discretion at any particular time to ensure that, in fact, the terms and conditions of this demolition, but also of the demolition plan are being met.

The councilor’s correct that there’s no public notification process for set time or day when the demolition activities may be taking place. The public notification is a part of this process as part of the demolition request, but staff do have that ability to enter under the property to ensure and monitor that the demolition is taking place as according to the demolition plan. Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that.

I think it’s really important that the community, if they’re listening in, they understand that. So they’re not having to overreact or get concerned, given the concerns that have happened the past number of years. And I would encourage the community to reach out to the planning staff, the heritage planners on file to get updates because the community will really not be kept up to date. So once the demolition plan is taken into account, the debris hopefully will be removed without machinery, then it continues within the Conservation Review Board and then that decision will come back to staff.

I just wanna kind of make sure I understand the process. So if staff can confirm that through your chair. Okay, can you please confirm what the councilor is asking about? Thank you, through the chair, that’s absolutely correct.

That once the demolition, as described in this application is complete, we would return to the Conservation Review Board. That process would play out, and then the Conservation Review Board would provide advice back to City Council. Staff would be returning with that advice to provide a staff recommendation on the next steps following the Conservation Review Board process. Councilor?

Yeah, thank you. And just last words, like I said, I’m more than pleased to move forward with the recommendation. And I just wanna thank staff. I wanna thank the owner too.

I know it’s been a long time. Three and a half years just looking at the debris. I know everyone wants to get going and come to some resolution. So thank you to staff for the work and the patience in the community as well.

So happy to move the recommendation. So the motion has been moved. Do we have a seconder? Councilor Lewis, any further comments or questions?

Councilor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And because there wasn’t a seconder, there wasn’t really an opportunity to speak earlier, but I’m seconding this because, while I understand Councilor Hill, your frustration with the time, with the resources and energy that’s being put into this. Quite frankly, the cart has gotten ahead of the horse multiple times on this property.

And this is how we keep the cart behind the horse where it belongs. It’s gotta go through a proper process. At the end of the day, the recommendation may come back that there is no longer a heritage value to what’s left. And if that is the case, then when that comes back, I’ll be fully supportive of a demolition permit.

But the process has gotten out of line too many times on this one. And we’ve got to follow through on the remainder of the process through the proper way. And so I’m happy to support the Board Councilor, Councilor Hopkins on making sure that that’s the process we follow. And the results of that will come back to a future meeting and we’ll make a decision then, but very supportive of following through the proper process for what’s left of this situation and resolving it the proper way.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? We have a motion that’s been moved and seconded. So I will call the vote now.

Motion to vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. That was the last of the scheduled items.

We do not have any items for direction. We do have one deferred matter. And that was from the consent items 2.6 regarding age six for Helmuth Avenue. So I will put that on the floor now for committee members to speak to Councilor Frank.

Thank you. And through the chair, I did circulate a bit of draft language regarding a motion for item 2.6. It is just essentially a bit of an augmentation of what staff had already proposed for the current direction. For their part A, they had included consideration be given to the use of permeable pavers.

And my suggested edit would be require the applicant use a permeable option such as gravel or permeable pavers for the paving material to reduce the environmental and heritage landscape impacts of the new driveway. So just strengthening that language a little bit and knowing that permeable pavers or gravel are more in line with various heritage elements in that area given the age of the home and the district. So I was hoping to put that motion on the floor to make that amendment to the direction that staff are proposing. Thank you.

I’m gonna treat this as a separate amendment. So we are dealing with an amendment now. I was wondering if we have a seconder for that amendment. Councilor Hopkins.

So we are dealing with an amendment right now and the clerk has that language. And then I will look for committee for comments. Councilor Lewis. Thank you chair.

And through you, I’m gonna be brief here. I won’t support this. We’ve already referred this proposal back once for staff to work with the applicant to get this situation in order. The requirement or the request to consider will be up to the applicant to consider.

This is not some multimillion dollar new development from folks who can afford to look at all kinds of different options. This is saying to the homeowner once again, hey, you’re gonna have to go back and change your plan. You might not have had that. You might not have had gravel or permeable papers in your budget or your plan.

But now we’re gonna put an extra condition on and make you go back. I’m not prepared to do that to an individual homeowner who’s trying to make their home more accessible so that an aging relative in this case, the mother can reside with them. When we ask for conditions on a new development, that’s the result of a back and forth with our staff and the applicants to put forward some things that are in line, the applicant feels that they can do, that our staff feels are reasonable conditions to impose on an application. And more often than not, I will support those.

But to blindside a homeowner with a redo your plan again after they’ve already waited about a month to come back to us since the last time they were here, potentially adding extra cost to them. It’s just not something I’m gonna support. So that’s all I’ll have to say to that. And I will be supporting the main motion after we deal with this amendment.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I did have a question through you to staff. Just staff’s comments on the fact, from what I understand the amendment is that we’re just adding the gravel part of it to the permeable papers.

So how difficult is it to add this amendment to already the recommendation that is really setting out the process on the driveway? All right, go to staff. Thank you through the chair. I’ll give an attempt to try to answer the question, Councillor, but please let me know if I haven’t quite heard you correctly.

Terms and conditions can be added to the approval of a heritage alteration permit. Typically we find those based in the applicable heritage conservation district plan. In this case for Bishop Helmuth HCD, the plan was passed in 2003 and didn’t consider the variety of materials that may exist today. So staff put forward the recommendation to consider those materials because we didn’t feel that there was an exceptionally strong policy basis to make that a requirement.

But certainly if it’s within this committee and council’s purviewed to add a term and condition that you feel is appropriate, Councillor. Thank you, and for me, the amendment through you to the mover, why I’m supporting it is it’s giving more options and maybe less costly options for the applicant. So I’m happy to create those extra options for the homeowner. Councillor Freud.

Thank you, and a question for staff through you. I just wanted to confirm that is this type of a requirement in line with regular terms and conditions that are usually expected through a heritage alteration permit? Staff. Thank you and through the chair.

Yes, terms and conditions are quite common on heritage alteration permit applications. Off the top of my head I think almost all of them have some sort of term and condition, very common. In some of our more recent heritage conservation districts, there’s much more clear guidelines in terms of what materials might be expected. Definitely encouraging some of those permeable paper features or even encouraging a dual track driveway.

Bishop Helmuth HCD unfortunately doesn’t have that level of specification that we see in some of our more recent HCDs. Councillor. Thank you, and just to follow down that pathway through the chair. So if this was in a different HDC, staff would be able to set forth a requirement because it would be more in line with policies.

I just wanted to confirm that it’s just because it’s an older HDC. Go to staff. Thank you, and again, through the chair. Yes, if we found that policy basis that would be one of our recommendations.

We don’t see many driveway applications. The policy direction generally discourages them. So especially in this case from our last time at committee, we were trying to find as many ways as possible to try to mitigate any potential negative impacts. So that’s why you saw our recommendation for consideration.

That’s as far as we felt we could stretch. But we also did want to emphasize the ability of landscaping to soften some of those visual impacts on the historic streetscape, which is very important on Helmet Avenue. Councilor? Thank you, that’s all.

Councilors. So I just want to, I hadn’t planned on speaking again, but I do feel like I need to go back and correct the record because I heard Councilor Hopkins say this would increase options. Requiring will actually decrease options. Nothing in the staff recommendation prevents the applicant from going with a permeable surface, whether that’s pavers, gravel, or anything else.

But it does take away their choice to go with something else. And so that’s why I won’t support this. We’re actually reducing, not increasing options. And the policies in the HDC in this case do not specify that.

So we’re actually superseding our policy there. So when we’re taking away options, that’s why I want to be clear, I won’t support this. Any other comments or questions? I’ll ask the Vice Chair to take the chair.

So I may make a remark from our, I have the chair. I don’t see Councilor Hillier on Zoom. So I don’t know if we have anyone else. Oh, we have Councilor Lehman on the speaker’s list.

Thank you. Yeah, so this particular home is not a heritage district building. It’s in a heritage district. It’s not a heritage building designated.

So quite frankly, it was a stretch for me last time. We asked the homeowner to incorporate some changes as the committee felt should be done. The homeowner has agreed to that and will be doing that. I think we, in this day and age, we need to encourage multi-generational housing, which this is a great example of.

There are other homes on the street that have driveways here, and they’re not set out as requested in this amendment. So I will not be supporting this particular amendment headed back to Councilor Lewis, Vice Chair. Thank you, Councilor Lehman. I do not have anyone else on the speaker’s list.

So I do have, I will advise you that I have Councilor Frank next on the speaker’s list, and I will return the chair to you. Thank you, and I will call on Councilor Frank. Thank you. I just wanted to see clarification through the chair to staff that by virtue of being in the HTC, all homes in the HTC are considered heritage.

I remember we had that conversation last time. I just was seeking further clarification on that. Please go ahead. Thank you, and through the chair, yes, all of the properties that are located within the boundaries of a heritage conservation district are considered to be heritage designated properties.

The heritage designating by-law is registered on the title of each of those properties. In our heritage conservation districts, we have different ways of recognizing the significance or contributions of those resources. In our most recent HCD, Blackfire’s Petersville, we recognize contributing and non-contributing resources. For some of our other HCDs, we use a ranking of A, B, C, or D, A being the most important to architecturally historically, and D being those properties that don’t contribute to that heritage character.

For Bishop Hellmouth HCD, there is no ranking that is established within the heritage conservation district plan, so all of the properties within its boundaries are considered to be heritage designated properties. Any follow-up? Thank you, yes, I much appreciate it, and I’ll say HCD. I just caught myself doing it a couple times.

And just lastly, I wanted to follow-up too with the concept that having a requirement supersedes a policy. I think I just wanted to hear his staff’s comment that because when you were mentioning that it was not originally included, if you were to rewrite that policy now, would you include further direction about specificity of materials? Well, I’m not too sure that comments can be made of what they would do if we were to write a by-law, but I think I know where the council is getting at, maybe allow you to maybe make a comment from your perspective. And thank you, Chair, for recognizing that difficulty of potentially answering this question.

I was going to twist it a little bit and just advise that in the most recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, Bill 23, the province has signaled that there will be new opportunities to amend or revise heritage conservation district plans in the old legislation before January 1st of this year. It wasn’t possible to amend an HCD plan without risk of its entire repeal. So that’s something that we’re certainly keeping our eyes on. We are very much more conscientious about what kind of materials are being recommended or required in heritage conservation district plans.

But I think that if you took an academic study of our plans, you would see an increasing level of specification within what makes those areas significant and how, through policy, we can protect that significance and guidelines to ensure that when there is new change in that area, how does a reflector fit in with the character that’s specific to find place? Councilor. Thank you, yes, that is very helpful. And I’ll still be supporting my own amendment just because through this process, I’ve seen that, again, there are many indicators that if this was in a different neighbourhood that had the HCD, if this was being rewritten, potentially you might have some edits to it, it would all be compliant with the ideal situation, which is having the fit to the heritage landscape impact and that, in my opinion, and staffs, I can tell by their use of consideration would be a permeable option as well as I think that there are numerous environmental benefits that would follow and understanding we don’t have a necessary policy for that.

Hoping we do in the future for all driveways, but that is a further discussion for another time, so thanks for that opportunity. Any other comments from committee members or visiting Councillors before I call the vote? Okay, we’re voting on the amendment. That’s been moved and seconded, so I’ll call that vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion failed, two to three. Okay, we’ll go back to the original staff recommendation. I’ll ask committee now if anyone would like to move that. Councillor Lewis, can I have a seconder?

Councillor Hill here, comments or questions on the motion recommending or moving the staff recommendation? Councillor Lewis. Just very briefly, what we had a debate around conditions, I certainly hope that committee will recognize the value of supporting accommodation for accessibility and multi-generational living and support this. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

We have motion as we moved and seconded, I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I will look for a motion of a German. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

All in favor, hand vote, meeting is adjourned, thank you everyone.