March 27, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Item 2.1 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-03-16 ECAC Report 4

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 16, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A02)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   6019 Hamlyn Street (Z-9565)

2023-03-27 Staff Report - 6019 Hamlyn Street (Z-9565)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to lands located at 6019 Hamlyn Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 27, 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 lands FROM a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-3(24)) Zone TO an Open Space (OS1) Zone;

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

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

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;

  •    the recommended zone conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Environmental Review Place Type, Our Strategy, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable London Plan policies;

  •    the recommended zone conforms to the policies of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended zone is appropriate and will permit open space/park uses consistency with the planned vision of the Neighbourhood Place Type and built form that contributes to a sense of place, character and connectivity.   (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   1154 Hamilton Road (Z-9569)

2023-03-27 Staff Report - 1154 Hamilton Road (Z-9569)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Lynphyl Homes Limited, (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants), relating to the property located at 1154 Hamilton Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated March 27, 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 Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA4(4)) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the following Site Plan matters have been raised through the application review process for consideration by the Site Plan Approval Authority:

i)    provide pedestrian connections throughout the site and wrought-iron fencing (or similar fencing type) and a gate along the area nearest the Hamilton Road and Gore Road intersection to access the sidewalk connections at the intersection;

ii)    provide a minimum driveway length of 6.0 metres where a driveway abuts a sidewalk, and a minimum of 2.1 metres where a barrier-free parking stall abuts a sidewalk; and,

iii)    consider alterations to current parking space configurations to provide a more substantial and usable amenity space and better screen any parking exposed to the public street;

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

-    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant, underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary.   (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   955 Commissioners Road East (Z-9572)

2023-03-27 Staff Report - 955 Commissioners Road East (Z-9572)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2833257 Ontario Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.), relating to the property located at 955 Commissioners Road East:

a)    the proposed, revised, attached, by-law by-law (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 lands FROM a Residential R9 (R9-7*H43) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H46) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design matters for 955 Commissioners Road East through the site plan review process:

i)    a variety of amenities in the outdoor open space to serve various populations;

ii)    additional tree plantings on site;

iii)    incorporate low walls, railings and/or landscaping to delineate private amenity areas from common outdoor spaces;

iv)    consideration of no fencing between the building and public pathways to maintain sightlines;

v)    consider including green infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations, green or cool roofs and/or solar panels;

vi)    consultation with the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks regarding development on lands previously used for waste disposal, and,

vii)    incorporate mitigative measures for methane gas venting & control mechanisms;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a project fact sheet;

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

-    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, the High-Density Residential Overlay (HDR) policies, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in The London Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized lot within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.   (2023-D04)

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)

3.4   376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9576)

2023-03-27 Staff Report - 376-390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9576)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by East Village Holdings Limited, relating to the properties located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street:

a)  the application BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back at the next meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to allow a temporary zone on the subject property for one year; and,

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

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

  •    the staff presentation; and,

  •    the applicant’s presentation;

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

-    B. Blackwell, Stantec Consulting.

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 S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   161 Bonaventure Drive (Z-9574)

2023-03-27 Staff Report - 161 Bonaventure Drive (Z-9574)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Bonaventure Crossings (London) Limited, (c/o Effort Trust), relating to the property located at 161 Bonaventure Drive:

a)    the proposed, revised, attached, by-law (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 Highway Service Commercial/Restricted Service Commercial (HS1HS4 /RSC2/RSC3/RSC4) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H30) Zone;

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

i)    reduce the number of surface parking spaces to accommodate more amenity space;

ii)    remove the parking area that is adjacent to Dundas Street and address the corner through a landscape treatment and outdoor amenity space;

iii)    screen any surface parking exposed to the public street or residential units with enhanced landscaping, including low landscape walls, shrubs and streets trees;

iv)    provide a centrally located and adequately sized outdoor amenity space;

v)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final site plan approval; and,

vi)    differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units. Incorporate patios or forecourt spaces that spills out into the setback to further activate the space and provide additional amenity space for residents;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized property within the Built-Area Boundary through an appropriate form of infill development. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   1407 and 1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

2023-03-27 Staff Report -1407-1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by York Developments, relating to the property located at 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road:

a) the application BE REFERRED back to Civic Administration to work with the applicant to look at design alternatives, to resolve site plan issues related to parking circulation and conflicts, residential amenity space and other related matters; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare an Official Plan Amendment to allow a single storey building on this site;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the staff presentation;

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

-    S. Allen, MHBC.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   614 Westmount Crescent (Z-9553)

2023-03-27 Staff Report - 614 Westmount Crescent (Z-9553)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by LA-Rosa Community Ltd., relating to the property located at 614 Westmount Crescent:

a)   the proposed, revised, attached, by-law (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 Residential (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide 2-storey townhouses south of the access along Westmount Crescent to provide an appropriate height transition from abutting low-density residential as per the site plan dated February 21, 2023;

ii)    provide lockable front doors and habitable living space on street-facing facades, including direct connections from the front doors to a walkway or sidewalk connection along the frontage of the property;

iii)    no fencing be provided between the buildings and the public street;

iv)    clarify how the disposable recycling and waste is stored and collected on the site plan;

v)    confirm the gross floor area of each dwelling unit and confirm basement ceiling height is 1.8 metres or more;

vi)    provide shared amenity space on site, and consider adding purposeful features to this space for amenity;

vii)    protect and retain as many of the City trees on the adjacent boulevard as possible. No tree removals shall happen until a permit has been issued by Forestry Operations in compliance with the City of London Boulevard Tree Protection By-law. Replacement trees shall be provided in appropriate locations;

viii)    consider offsetting any tree removals with plantings;

ix)    update the tree preservation plan to ensure all required information outlined by the Landscaped Architect has been included;

x)    ensure pedestrian circulation and access refinements are done with the Accessibility Review Checklist; 

xi)    identify the location of fire route signage and provide a standard detail on the site plan;

xii) include enhanced privacy aspects such as 7ft fences and more evergreen trees or cedar hedges; and,

xiii) the installation of a sidewalk along Westmount Crescent;

b)  the proposed alignment of the driveway for the subject property to potentially align with the property located at 615 Westmount Crescent BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting;

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

  •    the revised by-law; and,

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

  •    R. Marghella; and,

  •    B. Gritke;

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 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a type of residential development that will help to address the growing need for affordable types of housing in London.  The recommended amendment is in alignment with the Housing Stability Action Plan 2019-2024 and Strategic Area of Focus 2: Create More Housing Stock.  (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Planning and Environment Committee convene, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals arising out of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan (“VPSP”) at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convened, in Closed Session, from 6:27 PM to 6:59 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 28 minutes)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We’re ready to start the sixth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee. 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 Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Leno Peiwock, and Adawadaran.

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 you have people today as representatives of the people in the city of London. We are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting.

Please contact PEC@london.ca, that’s P-E-C @london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension, 2425. At this time, I will ask for any disclosures of funerary interest. Seeing none, we only have one item, consent agenda. That’s the fourth report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee.

I will look to the floor to get a motion to receive this. Councillor Hopkins, and seconded by Councillor Frank, and then I’ll open for questions or comments. Seeing none, I will call the vote. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we move on to the scheduled items. Pretty busy afternoon with seven, I’d like to welcome Councillors who are not on this committee, joining us today. We will go to committee members first on items, and then we’ll definitely look to you to weigh in when you’re so desire.

First item is 3.1. That’s the public participation meeting on 6019 Hamlin Street. So I look to committee to the motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Lewis.

Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We have the staff report at this time, I’ll open the floor to any questions from committee members and other Councillors who have technical questions only, please, on the staff report. Seeing none, and I will go to the applicant, if the applicant is here, and would like to address the committee.

Clerk, do we have, we’ll go to the public. If there’s anyone from the public that I would like to speak to this item, look in the gallery. I don’t see anyone wishing to speak in the gallery. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online, or in the Zoom’s, there’s no one online in the Zoom’s.

So I will go to the committee for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we will now move on to 3.2.

This is a public participation. Two. (laughing) Moving too fast here, folks. On my apologies, we’re out of the PPM on 3.1.

So now I will go to committee. I’ll use that, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I’d be happy to move this motion.

This is a subdivision in Ward nine, and I know staff, we’ve already approved the subdivision, going through the red line improvements, lots of challenges in this area. Obviously, there’s a natural heritage area, natural heritage system as well, and I just wanna thank staff and our pretends for sort of working on a number of issues, and obviously working on a park. How can you say no to a park in this area as well? So happy to move the motion.

Thank you. Can I have a seconder, Councillor Frank? Other comments or questions? Councillor Frank.

I like green space as well, so happy to second. Terrific. Seeing no other questions or comments, I apologize for rushing through that one. I just got all excited with the short PPM part.

So now I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Now we will move to 3.2, which is 1154 Hamilton Road. Look to committee to promotion to open.

The PPM, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We have the staff report at this time, we’ll look to committee or visiting Councillors if they have technical questions of staff regarding the application. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Thank you for having me as a guest this evening.

I do have two questions with regard to the application. I noticed in terms of the proximity to the hydro corridor, if there has been any communication with London Hydro as to how this will work. And also in terms of the roundabout that is also proposed, I do notice that there is a section that has been called out as being part of the roundabout and do we foresee any issues if a roundabout is warranted for that area. Thank you, I think we’ve had a two-parter there, just some questions regarding the hydro impacts and the hydro corridor there and the roundabout impact.

So I’ll go to staff. So through the chair, London Hydro did comment. They had no issues with the project. In regards to the Gore-Hamilton Road intersection, the plan did take that into consideration.

And the timing of that will be coordinated with the site plan of this application. Councillor McAllister. Any other technical questions? Okay, seeing none, move on to the applicants.

If the applicants is here, I would like to speak to it. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Sorry, can you hear me? Jay McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Principal Planner here on behalf of our client, Lin Full Holmes, the proponent.

We’ve had an opportunity to review the staff report and we are in concurrence with the recommendations for the approval. I’m here to respond to any questions that the committee may have and/or the members of the public. Thank you. Any technical questions at this time for the applicant to have?

Okay, I’ll move on to anyone in the gallery that would like to speak to this. I don’t see anyone coming forward. So I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online or in the other room. Jag Tarr-Killer.

Mr. Taylor, please, we’re ready for you to speak. If you could give us your name and address if you wish and you have five minutes, please go ahead. No, that was just a mistake, I’m sorry.

Okay, no problem. Okay, clerk. I do have any. Okay, seeing nobody else would like to speak to this, I’ll look to the committee to close the PPM.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll open the floor now to the committee.

Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I am prepared to move the staff recommendation. I’m sure Councillor McAllister, what if he was a voting member of the committee, but happy to do that for the East End? I have a seconder, Councillor Hopkins.

Comments or questions? I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins first. Yeah, I’m pleased to second this recommendation. I think it’s a great use of underutilized space in that area, it’s been empty or sort of vacated for so many years, so it’s really good to see something like this come along.

Also that mixed housing in the area, great opportunity for that. Really glad to see that the EA will be looking at sidewalks, I think as we develop intensifying certain areas and there’s no sidewalks that they’ll be looking at that, so happy to second. Thank you, any other committee members that would like to speak to this? I’ll go to Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, through you. I just wanted to make a comment that I’ve actually received a lot of favorable feedback from the community. To echo Councillor Hopkins’ comments, it’s been empty for a very long time. Originally, it was a Dominion gross historic, it’s been a bingo hall buffet, it’s been everything over the years, and I know the residents are really excited to see some more housing in there, so thank you to the applicant as well.

The community is behind it, so thank you. Thank you, and if the committee would allow me, I would just like to say thank you to the applicant. I think this is a great example of infill. I think there’s a lot of opportunity in this area as we look to increase our housing stock.

There are no other comments or questions. We have a motion that’s been seconded, and I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, now move on to 3.3.

This is a public participation meeting on 955 Commissioners Road East. I’ll look to the committee to open the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Lewis, so I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. We have the staff report, I’ll open the floor now for any technical questions for staff on the application. Seeing none, I will go to the developer for their comments. Please give us your name, and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Mike Davis here with Civic Planning and Design here today representing the owner and developer of this project, Royal Premier Developments. We’re fully in agreement with the staff recommendation report, and I want to specifically acknowledge the file planner, Mr.

Brent House. Brent was great to work with through this process, and I think he was able to kind of see the big picture of what we were trying to do, and help us overcome a lot of actual technical complexities in terms of the zoning and some of the site issues, so we appreciate his assistance. I do understand from Mr. House that there’s a few small revisions to the bylaw, which he is tabled with the clerk’s department, so I just want to make sure kind of on the record that those work their way into the final bylaw that does go to council, but they are minor in nature.

This is a really kind of interesting vacant parcel of land. It’s zoned and designated for high density, and it was originally envisioned to be phase two of apartment development. Phase one was developed in 1973, so since that time, this land’s been sitting vacant, and it was a design challenge for us to make sure that we integrate well with the existing kind of design of that complex, but at the same time, try and make some enhancements and improvements, so a couple things that we’ve done. We’ve eliminated all of the vast majority of the surface parking, consolidated that into a parking structure.

That’s opened up a lot more opportunities for green space on the site. We’ve also incorporated a 10 meter buffer from the rear sort of, there’s an environmentally significant area that the site backs onto, the Westminster Pawns. So there’s a 10 meter buffer that we’ve incorporated that through the process, we intend to fully kind of re-naturalize. So it’s just a couple of the highlights.

At the same time as we’re trying to add much needed housing to the site, we’re trying to make enhancements from a design perspective. So I’ll leave it at that. Of course, if there’s any questions from the committee, I’m happy to address those. Thanks.

Thank you, any technical questions at this time for the applicant. Seeing that, I’ll go to the public now, or if there’s any comments, seeing no one just wishes to speak in the gallery, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Okay, no one online. Okay.

I’ll look to the committee for motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Flank, and I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I will open the floor now to the committee.

Councillor Hill here. I will move the staff recommendation. Can I get a seconder? Councillor Lewis, comments or questions?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just wanna make a quick comment. I think this is a good application. I like the idea of going up around an environmentally sensitive area to not having that big footprint but being able to go up and really looking at the added recommendations to more or less do extra tree planting, consider including green infrastructure, electric vehicle charging.

To me, I think it’s quite innovative. Like the idea of a parking structure, obviously they can’t go underground on this property but I think a lot of thought and effort was put into this and I wanna thank the applicant and staff, of course. Any other comments or questions? Seeing no, I’d like to thank the applicant and it’s nice, it looks like some work was done here and thank you for those nice words about working with Mr.

House. It warms my heart to see applicants and staff working jointly to get more housing built in the city. Thank you. We have a motion moved and seconded.

I will call the vote. Opposing to vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we will now move on to 3.4. This is a public participant.

Sorry, we can’t start until 4.30. We will be taking a break until 4.30 because this is not scheduled to be heard until that time, this clerk has so informed me so I will look to the committee to take a 10 minute break. Councilor Hopkins moves, seconded by. Councilor Frank, hand vote.

We’ll see you back here at 4.30, folks. Okay, we’re past 4.30 and I will call the Planning Environment Committee meeting back to order. We are in 3.4, which is 376, 378, 382, 386 and 390. Hewitt Street and 748 King Street.

I will remove her to open the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Lewis. I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, we did get a last minute staff presentation. I hope everyone’s had a chance to go through and I’ll ask the committee members at this time if they have any questions regarding that presentation or other technical matters regarding this. Seeing none, then I will look to the applicant. If you would like to, oh, I’m sorry, Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry through you. I just wanna ask a quick question of our staff. The applicant in a communication to us suggested they would be willing to have something that was conditional upon the application of a building permit, but I want some clarity from staff.

I don’t think we can make a zoning change that’s conditional upon building permit being submitted, correct? We’ll go to staff on that question. Through the chair, that’s correct. We can’t make the zoning conditional once you issue the temporary zone for however many years that use is permitted for that period of time.

Councilor. Any other questions for staff of technical nature or on the staff presentation that was unadded? Okay, now I will go to the applicant. If the applicant would like to address the committee, please state your name, sir, and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, is this on, can you hear me? No.

Can you hear me now? We’re good. Okay, great. We submitted a presentation.

Can we add that to the screen, please? I’m making my presentation. At least second, please. My understanding, sir, is we, you were advised that we do not screen share.

We do have it in— Okay. We do, all the committee members do have that. Okay, thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Brian Blackwell, and I work at, I work for Stantec Consultant.

With me today, I have Luca Cott from Medallion. Mr. Chairman, the first slide existing parking lot is shown in red, and the Phase 3 proposed development in blue. That was handed to everybody on the committee.

Phase 3 will be a 24-story mixed use apartment building with 243 rental units and 900 meter squared of commercial space on the ground floor, fronting Dundas Street. This building also includes 13 affordable units as part of our ZBA approval. Mr. Chairman, next I wanna talk about a brief summary of the history of this application.

We submitted our Phase 3 ZBA application in 2019. In 2020, we received a non-compliance notice from the City By-law Department, for the parking lot. Medallion took two steps when we received this notice. The first step, we met with Planning Committee, sorry, we met with Planning Staff and By-law Enforcement to discuss a solution, which was to submit a temp parking zone application for the parking lot.

The second step, we revised our existing plans for Phase 3 to include an extra 100 parking spaces within the building. We had a pre-consultation meeting with staff and provided a conceptual site plan for this private parking lot. We worked with staff and revised the parking lot designed twice. Mr.

Chairman, you could see as part of our submission. With special provision, we submitted as part of our application that we’ve now included green space. We’ve reduced the existing parking from 76 units to 59 units, so we’ve reduced that parking lot by 16 spaces. Again, this is a private parking lot, not open for the public.

We put the ZBA application on hold due to a neighbor appeal to our Phase 3 ZBA application. We did win the appeal hearing for our Phase 3 in 2022. At this time, the London plan was now in full force. When we officially submitted our ZBA for the parking lot, we were then told our temporary parking does not conform to the London plan and city planning policies.

Mr. Chairman, this time parking is critical to medallions existing residential complex. Parking spaces has a direct relationship to our ability to rent units. Our proposed development is within the city’s BRT on King Street.

When the BRT is commissioned in this area, it will reduce the pressure of on-street parking. The subject parking lot will be designed with storm sewers, catch basins, and landscaping for city requirement. We’re also committed to Councillor Stevenson, our building, our building permit application for Phase 3 will be submitted by April 2024. Last point before Mr.

Cott speaks. When we asked staff at our last meeting, if there was any comments regarding this public notice, we were told that there was no comments from the public to this public notice. Okay. I just want to remind the applicant we have five minutes in total between both of you, so, but another minute left.

Good afternoon. My name is Luca Cott. I’m the development manager and medallion. I just wanted to add that we’ve exhausted all of our options searching for parking in this area.

We understand that there was an issue. I myself understand the policy intent itself, but I do take issue with respectfully that this would affect the full build out in terms of city development and building. This is detrimental to our next two phases, Phase 3, as you know, we’re trying to build within the next year and a half to begin construction. There’s another phase on the other side of this block that we want to proceed with as well, right after.

The 100 extra parking spaces that we added to Phase 3 comes at a significant cost as well as these upgrades to these parking lots. It’s not ideal, but it is absolutely detrimental. So I would seek your support for this as, you know, we want to continue working with the city. Medallion’s been at this, I think well over a decade.

I’ve been at this probably five years with the city and staff myself and with different faces over the years. We want to continue working well together. Like I said, it’s not ideal, but it’s absolutely detrimental to future development given the financial state of affairs we’re in today. They can seize that we have in our buildings because of this lack of parking.

We want to work together. So thank you so much. Thank you. I’ll go to members of the public.

I would like to address the committee. So clerk, if there’s anyone online, okay, we have no one online and I don’t see anyone that would like to address us from the gallery. So I’ll look to committee for a motion to close with PPM. Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’d open the floor to committee and visiting Councillors. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this. I’m here to speak on behalf of the residents of the Medallion buildings. They’ve been having a difficult time the last of the while and I really don’t want to see them have the additional stress of losing their parking spaces. This land can’t, my understanding is the land can’t be built on right now.

It’s too small. As a ward councillor, I do not want to see an empty piece of land that isn’t being used. Right now it is full of cars and it’s got security walking around. That’s really important to that entire area.

The BRT is not ready. When it is ready, that’s going to be a beautiful thing. I have been speaking with Medallion and they do pay for a car share in their current garage. So they are committed to finding other ways to solve people’s concerns about not having transportation to get where they need to go.

I support the vision that we have for that area. But the current reality is that the tenants require a parking space. And so at a time when we need housing, this would be not providing the housing that people need. And so as far as I understand, they have a waiting list for underground parking and that a lot of people, they just simply, an apartment isn’t going to meet their needs.

So it’s a deterrent to being able to provide people an option for housing. And Medallion has made an investment in commitment to this area and to the revitalization. I really want to support what’s happening in this area. And so I’m asking that also the neighboring businesses will be impacted if the parking strains increase.

So right now there’s already a lack of parking currently with that temporary parking lot. And so the businesses too will also be impacted as people try to find parking spaces that aren’t their own. The new tower will have 13 affordable units. New underground parking will be going into this new tower.

And so as I said, I’m here to represent those tenants and the people that we have in London who are having a hard time. And this is a way, there’s very few things that we as a city can do to help individuals and families who are struggling. And this is one thing that we can do. The land won’t be used for anything else.

Can I talk about the idea? Yeah. So the request I hope that’s coming before this committee and to council is to provide a one year temporary zoning that will allow the tenants to continue to have their parking and to allow Medallion to get their building permit in in the one year. And at that point, we can reevaluate.

At that point, we could give them the three year term that they’re looking for, which would be— let them build that last tower. So that is my request, because my understanding is the— and just to explain, being able to provide the three year zoning can’t be revoked. So that’s the reason why we’re changing things is we’re going to do one year that continues to put the commitment in that a building permit will be in next year, and when it is in, then we can come back and give them a three year temporary zoning permit just to allow them to get the tower built. And then once that tower is built, then hopefully there’s plans for something else for that land that fits the vision and policies that we have in place.

So thank you for letting me speak. Thank you, Councillor. I want to other members. Councillor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So my understanding— and there was a quick conversation as folks may have noted with staff that when we were on our break there, that staff would need some time to bring back something appropriate for a one year, because the application was for a three year, and it’s recommended for refusal. So I’m going to first move that this be referred back to staff, and I’ll speak to it after I’ve moved the referral, to come back to us at the earliest possible future meeting of PEC to provide a one year temporary zoning on this property. And we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that before I speak to it any further.

Can I get a seconder for that motion to referral? Councillor Frank, are you seconding? OK, we have a seconder. And we’ll go to— I’ll open the floor again for comments or questions on the motion.

I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Ward Councillor for being here. I appreciate your comments on trying to understand the development in this area is important.

I want to know what the difference between a one and a three year will be. I’m a little confused, because we can’t do the three year temporary one, but we can do the one year. Just like through you, Chair, to staff, to have a better understanding with this referral, what are we going to expect coming back? I’ll go to staff on that question.

Thank you, through the Chair. So I think the request for the one year is to ensure that something’s happening with the application. They’re going to get a building permit within that one year period, whereas if you approve three years, there’s nothing to require them to come back with a building permit in that time period. So the one year, you’ll see where they’re at in a year.

Hopefully there’s a building permit. And then as the Councillor suggested, she could consider a three year extension at that period in time. Councillor? And so it’s really the one year extension really relies on the building permit then.

And I just want to make sure that it’s going to be clear in the referral coming back. And then we can have a further conversation. We’re not really agreeing to three years and the reason I’m a little hesitant on that is I know these three years turn out to be more than three years as well. So just want to make sure it’s going to be dependent on the building permit.

And then we could have a further conversation depending on what that looks like. But I need to be clear on that. Mr. Corby?

Through the Chair, I think that’ll be part of the conversation when the application comes forward. It will present if the building permit has been issued or submitted at that point in time. If not, then that’s where you’ll have that conversation. I’m ideally it is submitted at that time.

Mr. Corby, am I correct in understanding that if this goes through then a year from now they would have to bring forth an application for another extension that this committee would then have to improve. So that’s my understanding, Councillor. We would, building permit or not, if they don’t have a building permit then that we would factor that into a decision whether we would extend an extension on that parking permit.

Is that correct, Mr. Corby? Through the Chair, that is correct. Okay, thank you, Councillor.

And if I may, just to follow up with that, if, so what would be the difference between a one year and a three year right now? Mr. Corby? Through the Chair, with the one year, it gives you a chance to re-look at it in a year where if we gave them three years, it would be three years before you see in the application in front of you again.

Councillor, good. Councillor Lewis? Thank you, Chair. So I want to share some comments and through you with colleagues and with our staff in the applicant as well.

I do not want to punish the current tenants of the building by taking away parking that has existed without proper formalization and really has been operating illegally as parking since 2009, but it has been operating. And we have heard that a number of those tenants depend on those spaces right now. But the applicant has made a commitment to have a building permit submitted by April of 2024. By the time this gets through Council, if it’s passed and if Council passes it as well, we will be into April.

And so I want to make very clear to the applicant today. If you come back in a year and ask for an extension and no building permit has been submitted, my vote will be no. This is not going to exist in perpetuity as surface parking. If the building permits in and plans are moving forward and you need an extension because of the build, that’s a different story.

But if nothing has happened with this file in a year, I will be a hard no. You’ve put that commitment in writing to the word counselor and I cannot express enough that you need to stick to that commitment. We, in addition to the parking challenges there, and by the way, I should say that not only the word counselor, but I also have to give credit to the OEV-BIA who contacted me today and really said, can we find a way to extend this at least temporarily? Because, as the word counselor mentioned, the businesses are feeling a bit squeezed too.

They’ve had some struggles and losing this will only enhance those struggles for now. But we’ve also heard in the last month or so, a number of concerns from tenants about water issues in the existing buildings and those kind of things. So I really, really want to emphasize to the applicant that we need to get our ducks in a row on this site and phase three and moving forward, because we want you to provide housing. We want you to provide parking, but we want you to do it appropriately.

And right now, there’s some serious question marks for me personally, but I’m willing to give a chance over the next year to get these things sorted out and moving forward. And those are my comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Any other comments from the committee who are visiting Councilor Frank? Thank you, a question for staff. I’m wondering for the one year, and I know that you’ll be recording back and coming back at a future meeting, but in the one year scenario, if when you’re coming back, will we be looking at what the draft proposed conditions would look like? Like I understand the suggested ones right now are to lose a couple of spots and have improved access and greenery.

And I’m just wondering if that wouldn’t change that much, it’ll probably be the same site plan. So I just wanted to confirm that with staff. I’ll go to staff for comments through the chair in a year, the parking lot will still be the same as it is today. Councillor, Councillor Lewis.

Sorry, through you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I need to make a little clarification on the referral back to staff. When the one year comes forward, it’s my expectation that the landscaping around the parking lot, that those enhancements that screening from the streetscape will be part of that one year.

We’re not gonna leave it as is, that’s my intent. So I don’t know if staff feels that there needs to be more clarity in the language, but even for the one year, that those spaces need to be that hedged whirl or whatever the screening is from the streetscape needs to be done. I’ll go to you, Mr. Corby, on those comments.

Through the chair, when we bring this back to the next planning community meeting, we can bring forward those items that the Councillor’s seeking was part of the site plan. Councillor. That’s sufficient for me for now. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I heard that staff will be bringing this back to the next planning meeting with the recommendations to extend one year. I agree, it should be an improved parking lot, not as is, but I do still think it is really important, ‘cause as soon as we put in a parking lot, if we can somehow have it attached to the permit, that one year extension, is that a possibility with the recommendation coming back?

Mr. Corby, through the chair, from a staffing standpoint and zoning standpoint, we can’t tie it to the building permit. Councillor, Councillor Fray. Thank you, yes, and just because this is my first time seeing, I guess, an illegal zoning use, I’m wondering, like, what is the response from staff on that other than working with the applicant to bring it back to the proper zoning use, but my understanding is there used to be a bunch of residential houses on the slot.

I assume that they, hopefully, got the demolition permits to demolish them, but what happens when people use zones that they’re not supposed to use for further issues? I’m gonna go to staff on that question. Through the chair, I can respond to that from a perspective of municipal compliance. So, firstly, be initiated, so either someone from the public would be flag that to our attention, we would investigate it.

This is just general, I just wanna speak general, not specifically to this case. And we would investigate it if it was seen that there was an issue related to zoning. We would have some back and forth with the owner, make sure that we understand exactly what they’re doing with the property. If, in certain cases, if we see that it doesn’t comply with the zoning, then one of their avenues would be to go through a zoning by-law process.

That is what has been selected in this case. If that is the case, then we pulled any enforcement action until after that by-law decision has been made by council, and then we would restart after that council that decision has been made if it’s warranted, if the zoning hasn’t complied with what the use of the property. So, that’s our normal way of addressing this kind of issue. Councillor.

Thank you, and just to follow up on that. So, hypothetically, if we turn down the zoning by-law amendment, and this is supposed to still be residential, what is a typical avenue that you follow at that point? Mr. Mathers.

So, as far as our typical approach is, then we would restart the enforcement process, and would likely go to a final notice to them, and then there’s a legal process after that if they don’t comply with the request. Councillor. Thank you, and I guess my final question is just, I’m curious about the houses that did go down. Do we understand if they were demolished properly?

I don’t know if that was in part of the investigation. Mr. Mathers, through the chair, I don’t have any information on the demolition, but we can track that down and provide the Councillor response. Councillor.

Thank you, yes. So, that could be part maybe of the report back in a month. I’m curious if we’re losing a bunch of residential spaces, and then I’m wondering what the enforcement or follow up with it is with that. So, I’m not too sure.

We’re talking about parking lot that’s already established here. There has been zone for this project, which would include any further demolition, I would assume, I’m not too sure of the details, but all we’re looking forward with this referral is to extend the existing parking lot for one more year, is that not correct? So, through the chair, if the request is just to take a look at what the history of demolition requirements are for this site, or if there was a previous applications, we can do that and provide that as a bit of a background of the report, but otherwise, is there anything additional that you would like beyond that? That was kind of what I understood from what Councillor Frank was asking.

Councillor. Thank you, no, that was what I was asking, but this is not currently zoned for parking lot. I just wanted to clarify that. This is currently zoned for residential, most of this is residential, right?

Mr. Mathers, can you confirm that? Through the chair, that’s correct, right. Okay, thanks for pointing that out, Councillor.

Any other comments or questions? Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I have been speaking with medallion quite a bit since the problems, you know, were publicized, and I’ve been speaking with the residents.

I spoke with medallion today, and I feel very confident that the company’s doing all that they can to provide a safe and a nice place to live. I’m going to continue to work with them and to work with the residents to make sure that that is true, but this company has created three towers in that area. They’re committed to two more, that the taking down of those houses in the parking lot, it may be zoned residential, but at the moment it’s not big enough to do another tower. And so my understanding is they are actively trying to purchase properties located next to that so that they can continue to provide the level of housing that we need on the BRT route.

So to me, the parking lot is there. It’s been in existence. I really don’t want to see the tenants punished for this. It does no good to deny it in the sense that it’s just dead space then.

It will not be built on in the next little while. I do support the one year rather than the three because we have an urgent situation with housing and I want to ensure that that building permit is in next spring. So it was recommended by staff that the best way to do that is to give a one year because if we give a three year with a condition, we have no power to enforce the condition. So a one year means that in one year, the building permit is in and we go ahead and approve a three year to allow them the time to build that high rise and at that point we’re on to something else.

As Ward Councilor, it really matters to me the tenants, the stress that they’re already under to allow them to have the parking spaces where there’s nothing required to just let them to continue to do what they’re doing. It serves the area because there’s activity, there is security. As Ward Councilor, I do not want to see vacant space in that. By allowing the parking to continue, we also open that housing up to people that have a need for a car and getting more people into that building, more people living in that area is gonna help the businesses.

It’s gonna help the other tenants. And I really feel this is a great solution where the tenants win. We’ve got still pressure to ensure that the housing moves forward. There’s accountability that is trackable.

And I’m really asking for this committee support and council support. This area is struggling. We’ve got a corporation that’s willing to invest in that area and support the revitalization. And we could really use a win for these tenants and for that area.

I really don’t see the downside to the city because I still see the vision of the policies and the London plan and I hold that vision. This doesn’t preclude that. This is just a temporary measure. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee members? If the committee will allow me, I’d just like to make a comment or two. This is what I remember when this first came to council.

It’s a very exciting development. It’s so important on many levels. From a housing point of view, as a affordable housing aspect to it and the location. This could be a game changer in old East by bringing people residents right down to that area that are going to work and shop and revitalize that area.

I also think, what the motion is after here, that it shows the applicant our desire to get a shovel on the ground. We need housing and I hope this emphasizes, we will work with you. But we are eager to see this project underway and we will work with you in that regard. I will from my position here.

But I want to see a shovel on the ground as was said earlier. So if there are no other further comments or questions from committee or other councilors, we have a motion moved and seconded. And I will call the vote. Second the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We will now move to 3.5, which is 161 Bonaventure Drive. To the committee to open the PPM Councilor Hopkins.

Seconded by councilor Louis on call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We have the staff report. There are any questions of technical nature. I’ll open the floor for those questions at this time. Seeing none, I will look to the applicant.

If the applicant would like to address the committee, please state your name. Sir, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, for me. I suffer from it a cold, Mr.

Chair, good afternoon. And Scott Allen, MHBC, and we’re acting on behalf of the applicant. I believe members of our project team are online via Zoom. At this time, we’d like to express our support for the findings and conclusions of the planning staff report, as well as the fact that we are largely in support of the recommended zoning bylaw amendment.

The committee has received correspondence from the applicant requesting a modification to one element of the requested zoning to implement the intended development plan. This request pertains to the proposed zoning provision that would not permit parking within 30 meters of Dundas Street. The portion of the property in question is relatively narrow and the frontage of this location is 19 meters. The preliminary site plan prepared for the project proposes a surface parking area at this location between the parking building and Dundas Street with an enhanced landscape area provided along the Dundas Street streetscape.

This parking, for your information, a parking area was originally considered for a common amenity space. However, our noise consultant indicated that the noise levels were too high adjacent to Dundas Street for properly located amenity space, even with noise barrier. If this reason, the amenity space has been relocated to a centralized location on the site. We have reviewed the planning staff report and understand the policy direction in the London plan that has guided the proposed setback regulation, including the need to screen parking areas to minimize streetscape impacts.

Given the irregular shape of the property and the centralized position of the apartment building, in our opinion, permitting a limited amount of screen parking between the building and Dundas Street would not offend the intent of these policies as reasonable in this particular circumstance. It’s also important to note that the applicant is seeking to maximize surface parking opportunities on the site in order to manage project costs and to help maintain competitive rental rates. Furthermore, our project team intends to work closely with city staff at the site plan approval stage to explore options to further enhance the screening arrangement along the Dundas Street interface. And led to these considerations, an amended version of the proposed zoning bar law is enclosed with the applicant’s letter that removes the site-specific parking areas setback requirement.

We respectfully request that the committee support this application and endorse the requested revision to the draft amendment. Thank you for your consideration. We’ll gladly answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you, any technical questions right now for the applicant from committee members?

Okay, seeing none, I will go to the public now. Is there anybody in the gallery that would like to speak to this? Is there? Ah, Sir Clerk, if there’s anyone online.

Okay, seeing none, then I’ll look to the committee for a motion to close BPM. Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Frank and I’ll call the motion or the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, and I’ll open the floor to committee members, Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So through you, first, I will say that I’m very happy to have some infill projects coming in ward two. This will provide a good number of housing choices at a site that’s very, very underutilized right now. I will also say I completely concur with the applicant having been on the site myself on Dundas Street.

We’re talking about a volume of almost 23,000 vehicles a day. A lot of that transport traffic coming in and out of the city along Veterans Memorial Parkway. It is quite noisy. (clears throat) Across the street, on the north side, we have a parking lot that is Lynn’s Bakery, a building setback and actually slightly depressed down from the road.

On the north east side, we have a gas station with a couple of service bays in it still, which don’t know if you’ve got too many gas stations out there still with service bays in them, but this one still has one. (clears throat) And then on the south east side, we have a PV Mart. Two properties down is Bonaventure Meadows Park. Great, well used amenity space, as well as Bonaventure Meadows Public School.

So easy walking distance to play in school if we have families moving into this building. But I also support it because it is gonna provide quick access to Veterans Memorial Parkway. For those who may want to have the opportunity to take jobs out there, it is on a transit route. The 35, we’ll get you to our ground wall.

And once we get the on-demand transit to the industrial areas that LTC has committed to bring forward later this year, hopefully some service out to some employers as well. So very happy with this application. And I really have had very limited resident feedback with concerns, obviously height and shadow, but where the building is situated actually, and primarily from residents of the trailer park, and I’ve gone out and chatted with them, and they understand now where the building is being situated, it’s not going to have really that impact that they thought it would. Obviously some traffic concerns as we hear at every infill application we have.

But Bonaventure is almost 5,000 vehicle trips a day. And as I said, Dundas is almost 23,000. So the addition of another 125 or so residents is not going to radically change the traffic patterns. I want to also take this opportunity to thank Ms.

McNeely and Mr. Corby, who have been extremely helpful in giving of their time in talking to me about this application and how it can work, because I do want to see it go forward. The applicant has made some changes from their preliminary design. There was originally a request for two entrances.

Now we’re down to one. Transportation was not happy with the two, and that’s now gone from this plan. So all in all, a very positive application. I will say with regard to the applicant’s request to just refer the setback to site plan.

Not that I don’t have confidence in our site planning folks. I know Mr. P’s and his team do a wonderful job, but I’m not prepared to just say, send it to site plan. What I am prepared to do though, is move an amendment, and I spoke with the applicant directly last Thursday, and said what’s, how can you make this work?

Well, there’s still a specific setback. The answer was 15 meters. There is a, it was circulated to members of committee. There is a draft council recommendation in eScribe for you to look at.

And the only change I’m proposing is that we amend section 2.5 to read 15 meters instead of 30 meters on the setback. I think that still allows ample opportunity for some landscaping and some screening of that parking area from Dundas Street. It allows the applicant to maintain the surface parking that they need. I think it’s important to note as well that there is some underground parking at this site.

So it’s not all surface parking, but of course underground parking is expensive. And the applicant has expressed multiple times to me, their intent to try and keep this site reasonably affordable rents for people. So that’s the amendment that I’m proposing, is that we reduce 2V to 15 instead of 30. Everything else would stay the same.

My understanding clerk, as you have that wording ready. Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. Through you to staff, I’m just wondering if that amendment works with what you imagined for this site.

I just wanna see if you guys have had a chance to think about that and what your thoughts are. I’m gonna go to staff. Through the chair, the 15 meters, I think, will provide significant space for that enhanced landscaping and to hide the parking and screen it. Ideally, our recommendation was the 30 meters to keep it as green space to reduce the surface parking at that intersection, but I think 15 meters is significant still.

So we have a motion, amended motion on the floor. That’s been moved. Do I have a seconder for that or a seconder? I will second that motion.

So we have a motion that’s been moved and seconded. Now open the floor now for comments or questions on that amended motion. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I was hoping to follow up as Deputy Mayor Lewis mentioned that the applicant is hoping to make these affordable units. And I’m just wondering, given that we are giving up 15 meters in the hopes that that cost will be passed along to the residents of the building, I’m wondering what kind of guarantees or information we can seek from the applicant to understand what the affordableness of that nature and how it will be passed along to the residents. I’ll go to the applicant. There’s a question here.

Could you provide some guidance on affordable units that may or may not be included in this development? Through you, Mr. Chair, at this point, the intent is that the mid-rise apartment building would be rental accommodation. There isn’t any specific allocation at this point for affordable housing units.

However, we will certainly explore that going forward through the site plan approval process with city staff to see if there’s an opportunity to establish defined affordable housing within that development. Councilor. Thank you. And hearing that is very encouraging.

I’m wondering is that are we able to include that perhaps in some of those recommendation if we are seeking some affordable units, maybe for this 15-meter difference to reduce the cost for the underground parking? I will go to the mover of the motion if you would like to make changes to his motion. So I guess I should first of all clarify. When I said affordable, I was reasonably affordable.

These are not going to be the luxury condos being built on King Street or on Talbot. When you look at the affordability in the East End, happy to say that we do a little bit better than the rest of the city in that regard. And so these will be a little bit more attainable than say trying to move downtown or move out to one of the, and I know we’re gonna talk about an application award seven later, but some of the great accommodations that are developing out in Hyde Park, but they’re at a little higher price point. So I would not want to hold this application up if the applicant’s willing to have discussions through site plan about what that might look like, because I know that they’d have to go through their financing.

They would have to make sure that they can still build it rather than arbitrarily picking two units at 70% or three at 80% or whatever that might be. I’d really like to leave it open for the applicant to just work with our staff to get, quite honestly, shovels in the ground as soon as possible, so that these 125 units at whatever price they’re at can be occupied sooner than later. Councillor. Thank you, yes, I appreciate that.

And I think to me, if the main reason of reducing the parking is for more affordability within this building, I would be really keen to see that written down somewhere. So I understand though, the deputy mayor’s points of not holding up the process. So I do think generally hearing also from staff that they are okay with the 30 to the 15, I’m supportive of it. I will say though, I do think I will be looping back maybe in two years and to have a little chat and see how many affordable units we’re here and what the price point was for the rental.

And if we can ensure that some of that cost savings that the applicant will be receiving from not doing underground parking are being passed along to the residents of the building. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councillor happens.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And just following up, just so I understand what we’re doing here and what we’re approving. I did hear that one access point has been removed.

I just want to see and compare the notes that I have. I have two access points that we are approving, but just want to make sure I understand this application. That’s my first question. Thank you, and I’ll go to staff for clarification on the journey from two to one access points.

And through the chair. So initially, yes, you’re correct. There was two access points. However, the North access location is not supported by transportation.

So the preferred location for access is potentially to be aligned with 2,209 Dundas or moved completely with just one access location on the southerly portion of the site. And this is Percy City’s access management guidelines. A private driveway cannot be located closer than 60 meters of the arterial intersection. And so we’re just going by what transportation recommended.

So we landed on the one access point. Yeah, I’m sorry. I thank you for that. And that’s the one on the south side or just looking at the information that I have in front of me, staff.

And through the chair, there is a bylaw that we included. I’m just gonna pull that up here. So the language in the bylaws says no access shall be provided along Bonaventure Drive within the first 60 meters of the intersection south of the Dundas Street frontage. Councillor.

Thank you, just wanting to understand the application, what we’re approving here. So thank you for that information. I am generally supportive, affordable housing is on everyone’s mind and really would encourage the applicant given that we’re making some accommodations to the recommendation coming from staff to encourage that conversation through the site plan. I think it’s worth to note that and thank the Councillor Frank for bringing that forward.

This again is an underutilized site. So for sure development in this area, the intensification is quite a bit and it’s supportive of that. It’s on that transit route. I do recommend, applaud the applicant for putting in one in two bedrooms.

I think he’s done some homework. There is a demand in that area. So generally supportive of this application going forward. Any other comments or questions from committee members or others council to us?

Very briefly, I’ll just encourage Kent, Councillor Frank to not wait two years, come by ward two anytime we can go walk the site if you’d like after lunch. Thank you and a thick committee will allow me just to speak from the chair. Another great example of Enfield and a very tricky parcel of land. So thank you to the applicant and the staff ‘cause sometimes tricky plots of land require some extra work and I think this is a great example of getting more housing out in this area.

So thank you. If there are no other comments or questions, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, we will now move on to 3.6 and this is a public participation meeting regarding 1407 and 1427 Hyde Park Road. I’ll look to the committee to open the PPM, Councillor Hopkins, I guess, seconder please. Councillor Frank, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. We have the staff report in our agenda. So at this time, I’ll look for committee members if they have to ask any technical questions of staff. Seeing none and I will go to the applicant.

The applicant could state your name and you have five minutes. Mr. Chair, Scott Allen, MHPC acting on behalf of the applicant and with me today are two members of our project team available to answer committee’s questions. The applicant has also provided a letter to the committee responding to concerns that out in the city staff report and I would like to briefly touch on those.

At the outset, I wanted to advise the committee that following its September 27th meeting, our project team revised the site plan layout to address several core concerns identified by city staff and the public. Most notably, the drive-through restaurant proposed for the site was removed. The improvements to the site layout are acknowledged in the planning staff report. However, city staff also identify outstanding concerns with the project design that, from our opinion, are the basis for the refusal recommendation.

We respectfully disagree with city staff recommendation and we’d like to provide the committee with a brief response to five key concerns that were identified in the staff report as outlined in our letter, the applicant’s letter. Firstly, with respect to the mixed use site layout, city staff expressed concern that the commercial and residential uses planned for the site are not integrated into mixed use buildings as encouraged by the London Plan. This option was assessed in project plan. Excuse me, could you please mute?

We’re just getting some feedback who’s ever online. Thank you very much, sorry, please continue. This option was identified in project planning, Mr. Chair.

However, the project team concluded that this type of mixed use configuration would not be economically viable at this location under current London market conditions. It would not result in a more functional site layout when compared to the proposed development plan. Item two relates to building positioning. Based on our review of the planning staff report, the positioning of the North Townhouse building appears to be a primary outstanding concern as parking in a drive aisle are proposed between that building and self-carriage road.

The city staff has suggested this townhouse be repositioned along South Carriage to better align with the main street character envisioned for this area. This configuration was explored, and our team found that it created a less functional site overall and that the internal circulation system had a greater potential to impact on pedestrian safety. It’s important to note that a landscaping plan will be developed during the site plan of approval phase to screen this parking area from the street. Additionally, to reinforce the main street character, the building height for commercial buildings along Hyde Park Road has been increased to at least eight meters, which will permit second-story mezzanines in these buildings.

Thirdly, in relation to pedestrian safety, city staff noted that the internal circulation system may pose a risk to pedestrians. The updated design includes several refinements to help ensure pedestrian safety is set out in the applicant’s letter. Also, pedestrian safety is paramount to our team, and we work closely with city staff going forward to resolve any outstanding safety concerns. Fourthly, regarding amenity areas, common outdoor amenity areas have been planned for the development, have been expanded to complement the community parks and open space located in the close proximity to the site.

However, we will explore this project component further and site plan with city staff to address the concern that there’s an adequate amount of amenity space within the development. Finally, in relation to the access arrangement, we understand that city’s transportation department does not support the joint access to Hyde Park Road proposed at the south end of the site. Our traffic expert will review this access with transportation and greater detail at site plan to confirm an appropriate arrangement. Taking these matters into account, our project team is satisfied that the outstanding concerns can be addressed as project planning advances.

Draft planning amendments have therefore been provided with the applicant’s letter to help progress this project. We will gladly review the language of these proposed amendments for city staff prior to submission to city council. To conclude, in light of the considerations presented, we respectfully request the committee support this proposal and endorse a recommendation for approval. Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions.

Thank you, any technical questions for the applicant at this point? Okay, seeing none, I will look to the gallery to see if anyone from the public would like to speak to this matter. Clerk, is there anyone online? Okay, and I will look for a motion to close the PPM.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, call the vote. Motion to vote, a motion carries five to zero. I’ll open the floor now to the committee and others, other Councillors at this time. Councillor Ramen.

Thank you and through you. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak on 1407 and 1427 Hyde Park Road. I appreciate the opportunity for full some discussion on this proposal, and thank you to Ms. McNeely and Mr.

Corby for their time today as well. This proposal is at Hyde Park and South Carriage, and first I wanna thank the applicant for addressing the drive-through concerns from the initial proposal after hearing from the community and being sensitive to the needs of the community. I think there’s an opportunity here for this development to add to and complement the business and residential offerings in this area. This does represent and fill in the urban growth boundary, and I believe that a referral would help to address some of the challenges and the desire to outcome to be reached.

The London Plan envisioned a broader vision, a range of residential and retail in this location, and it is my understanding that a two-story commercial building is desired here. However, I do see that the applicant is addressing this by increasing the height to 8.9 meters. I’d like to see us move forward with the 75 units on the site. In fact, I’d support even more housing on the site.

My suggestion at this time is a referral to work with the applicant to look at design alternatives, resolve the site plan issues related to parking, circulation, conflict, residential amenities that they’ve addressed in the letter that they’ve provided, and other related matters. I’m of the opinion that a one-story commercial building that meets the height requirements shouldn’t hold up housing when we’re in the situation that we’re in. I believe that the best way to address these concerns is through the referral, instead of through the site plan process at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to any members, Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I am happy to put on the floor, Councillor Robinson’s referral on this. We had a good conversation about this.

I agree with her that the single-story commercial on this site is not the holdup for me, but there are a number of issues with the parking circulation, the amenity space that I’m not comfortable just referring to site plan. I think we need to know what we’re getting, but I think the public also needs to know what they’re getting if this application is ultimately approved to move forward. So the Councillor graciously prepared some language. It is in E-Scribe that the application be referred back to civic administration to work with the applicant to look at design alternatives, resolve site plan issues related to parking circulation and conflicts, residential amenity space, and other related matters, and be that civic administration be directed to prepare an official plan amendment to allow a single-story building on this site.

So I’m prepared to move that referral with those two clauses and see if there’s a seconder for that. So I’ll look into a committee for a seconder. Councillor Hopkins, are you seconding? We have a seconder, emotions moved and seconded.

I’ll open the floor. Well, I’ll go to the committee now for comments or questions on the motion. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’m happy to second this.

I know this was in front of us a number of months ago, even last year, and maybe it wasn’t in front of us. We, I think the applicant did pull it back to have further conversations with staff, and I would really encourage that to continue. I want to thank the applicant for making those changes with the drive-through, and I think creating a bit of height there. But I do too do not want this held up either and really want to encourage the conversations with staff and applicant.

There is a list. There’s a long list of things that I’m still not sure of before this can be approved. So I think that’s probably the best situation and happy to second. Councillor Fray.

Thank you, yes. I just had a question about part B. I’m just wondering if that is perhaps a bit premature if we’re asking them to work with the applicant for part A to look at design alternatives and considering that it’s not compliant with our official plan. I’m just wondering if staff would find like before they’re able to actually have a discussion and see if maybe there could be more floors as per following the official plan if directing them to do the second part is a bit early in this process.

So I’ll go to staff on those concerns through the chair. I think it’s okay for us to look at both of them together as noted by the applicant. They did raise their heights to the eight meters plus. So that would conform to the official plan.

But if you would like us to look at the single story at the same time, that’s something we can do. So I’m okay with the amendment. Councillor. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? We have a motion that’s been moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. We will go to 3.7. This is a public participation meeting regarding 614 West Mountain Drive. I’ll look to the committee for a motion to open the BPM.

Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank and I’ll call the vote. Councillor Hill here, can you please vote? Again, my screen blanked for a second. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So we have the staff report. Are there any questions of a technical nature from the committee members for staff?

Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant. Yeah, a lot of work tonight. Piers that way, yes. Please go ahead, you have five minutes.

Chair, thank you, Mr. Chair. Scott Allen, MHBC, acting on behalf of the applicant. I understand that members of our project team are available via Zoom to respond to questions the committee members may have.

This time we’d like to advise that we support the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report. And we’d also like to advise the committee that following submission of our application, we worked closely with city staff to revise the townhouse layout to help enhance its compatibility with the local development context. And in that respect, we’ve supported the revised plan before the committee now. And we agree that as city staff does it, it supports housing choice and represents an appropriate infill for this project.

And finally, Mr. Chair, we’d like to advise the committee that as part of site plan approval, we will be working closely with city staff to develop a landscape plan that will address privacy concerns with neighboring properties. Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions committee members for have. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant at this point, technical? I will go to anyone who would like to speak from the public. Please give us your name and your address if you wish, ma’am, and you have five minutes. My name is Rose Margala.

Sorry, can you, no? Thank you for helping, speaking to you. I’m kidding, okay. My name is Rose Margala.

My husband, Frank, and I have lived at 628 West Mount Crescent, right next door to this proposed townhouse development. We built our house about seven years ago. We built here because it was a quiet, peaceful, low traffic neighborhood. The lots were larger than most, and it provided a lot of privacy.

We, and most of our neighbors, we’re here at City Hall only a few months ago to complain and resist the building of a six-story apartment building right across from our house. We with our neighbors were here twice at City Hall for meetings. We wrote letters to the planning department, to the counselors. We complained about the heavy traffic on the street, which have no sidewalks.

We complained about the entrance to the building, being off West Mount Crescent, off Commissioner’s Road. We complained about the size of the building. Why six stories high? Why not three stories high?

We complained about that there was no transition from a single family home to a six-story building. The counselors ignored the request to downsize the size of the building. We voted and voted yes to build this six-story building. Here we are again.

Now it is 18 units of stacked townhouses and right next to our beautiful house. We are devastated and also frustrated because no matter how much we and our neighbors complain, we are not listened to. The traffic lower property values and noise. The peace and quiet concerns will be even more affected.

I feel coming to these meetings is just a waste of time as the decision are already decided. My husband and I do not plan to move, but our privacy is very important to us. Our privacy is our backyard, our privacy in our back patio is important to us. From the drawing submitted by the developer now, from our patio, we will be staring into a parking lot.

Our bedroom window will face the front of five three-story townhouses. The six-foot high wooden fence is too low to give us privacy. Cedar trees that are eight feet tall and planted, one foot apart along the northern property line will be in time, give us at least some privacy. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other folks that would like to address the committee? Please sir, give us your name and address if you wish and you have five minutes. Brian Gricky, I live at 601 Jamaica Corps, so my lot backs on to the proposed site.

One of the concerns I have is there is a significant water build up in that area. I was wondering what the applicant has planned to resolve that. Just wanna make sure it’s not going to all flood into my yard. I’m writing down your concerns and questions.

Sir, I’ll go to the applicant or our staff to address them, so. Okay. Please continue if you have other questions or comments that you’d like to make. That was really just my main concern for this.

I think she spoke a lot of the other concerns we have in the neighborhood as well. Okay, thank you very much. Any other folks that would like to address the committee, do we have anyone online? Mr.

Shah? Mr. Shah, are you online? Yeah, I am.

Sorry. Ms. Shah, can you please go ahead, you have five minutes. I’m sorry, but I don’t have anything to say right now.

Okay, thank you very much. It’s a clerk if there are others online. Seeing none, I don’t see anyone else in the gallery wishing to speak, so I will go to committee to promotion of closed PPM. Councilor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Frank.

I don’t call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I see Councilor Van Mirberg and has joined us remotely, but first I’ll go to committee members for any comments or questions. Councilor Frank, then I’ll go to the councilor happens.

Thank you, and through the chair, I was just hoping to have staff perhaps answer the water buildup question on the site. Thank you, Councilor. After my great promises, I probably forgot. I apologize, sir.

Yes, can you address the concerns about water runoff into neighboring properties? Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we could direct that question to the applicant, please.

If the applicant would like to address concerns about drainage. Thank you, Mr. Chair, sorry. As part of the site plan approval process, we’ll have a detailed stormwater management program or strategy established for this project.

And the comments identified as the concerns will be taken into consideration as part of that analysis. I’m not an engineer, ‘cause I can’t really speak more to it than that, but other than to say that it will be addressed. Can I go to staff, is are we confident from an engineering standpoint that we will have professionals looking at drainage on this development? Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Yes, that would be something that, from a staff review, we’d require servicing study just to ensure pre-development flows are addressed and contained on site, not to minimize any impacts on neighboring properties. Okay, thank you. Councilor, thank you for that.

I appreciate you having my back on that one, and then please go ahead. Thank you. I did want to follow up on the privacy screening as well in regards to having a higher fence or cedar trees and just seeing if staff can comment on if we’ve kind of achieved maximum privacy, I guess in this application. Yeah, we’ll go to staff on privacy issues, fence and leave a cedar hedge or trees were mentioned as well from the public.

Through the Chair, through the site plan process, a typical board on board fence will be required along any property line. Obviously taken into consideration some of the existing vegetation. With that though, the standard height, as I mentioned, is six feet or 1.8 meters in the site plan control by-law. If directed, we could look at something approximate to 2.1 meters or seven feet.

In addition to screening, we typically look for a tree every 12 to 15 meters, but again, if directed, we could look at some enhanced vegetation such as cedars or more four season type varieties of planting. So we would be looking for that anyways, but if directed, we could certainly make that a more… We could definitely make that more of a thing through the site plan process where we’re asking the applicant to provide for that. Councillor.

Thank you. I would like to direct that. So who should we add as an amendment to the motion if we have a motion on floor, if or when? We currently do not have a motion, so if you would like to make a motion, Councillor, and have the clerk input specifics regarding privacy that Mr.

P’s touched on, you’re welcome to do so. I’m sorry. We’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Thank you.

I do have a couple questions for staff and one of them, well, a couple of them have already been addressed. I guess moving onward with the sidewalks situation, there is not a sidewalk along that road given the many developments that are happening in this area. Just wondering if that is part of the application process. I’ll go to staff, wearing sidewalks along that stretch.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, the applicant, after having some discussions, I believe indicated that they were going to bring the sidewalk down further. So I’ll leave that to them to answer that question.

I’ll go to the applicant. Could you maybe provide some guidance on your plans for extending the sidewalk? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was curious if Mauricio is online to answer that specific question. If he was to be online. We’ll check. My apologies, I can’t tell.

He’s not. Okay, unfortunately not. I don’t believe, Mr. Chair, that I’m in a position to make that statement.

I did not have that conversation with our client. It’s my understanding that the expectation as a sidewalk would be established and extended across the property from commissioners. But I’m not 100% sure. We can certainly have that information for the council, or for the committee in the near future before council.

Yeah, thank you. I would appreciate that information. I think we’ve heard on a number of applications in this area, the safety aspect of traveling along West Mount Crescent in particular. But how do we connect that up to Commissioners Road West?

I thought I’ve read something that it was going to be connected, the sidewalks coming out of the property to the sidewalk on West Mount. I could be wrong. I don’t know if a staff can comment, but if someone can get back, I think staff might be able to. I think I’ll go to staff to kind of give a norary of the sidewalk situation right now.

Oh, all right. Three, Mr. Chair. Actually, the sidewalks can be addressed through the site plan approval.

And I believe I indicated that in the recommendation. There’s, I believe it’s clause two. So it’s in there to be addressed and considered during site plan approval. So I do see it here.

It says, and I wasn’t sure exactly what sidewalk. So it is addressing the sidewalk on West Mount Crescent. Just want to make sure we’ve got the sidewalk on the property. Yeah, can we get maybe a little more exacting?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee or Council can direct more specific wording if you saw it. Yes, and since there may be a motion, maybe adding it to that other amendment that Council of Frank is making on the buffering.

I just think it’s very clear. I know it’s come up on a number of applications in this area. Safety and movement is a concern. So having sidewalks just adds to better mobility safety on a sidewalk with the intensification that is happening.

And just following up on the sidewalk, there was a comment from the public in the responses in the recommendation around lighting too. And I guess that will be looked through site plan. I see heads nodding from staff, but I think again, if we’re putting in hoping a sidewalks and encouraging movement along the street here that lighting obviously is important. But last question is the tree preservation plan.

Just wanna have a better understanding. I can see in the recommendation that we’re doing a lot to assist with the city trees and the preservation updating the tree preservation plan. And again, many applications in this area, loss of trees if you Google map this area, the community is going to noticeably see a change in the loss of tree canopy. I know applications will be adding trees, but I wanted to get a better understanding on how many trees, we have 44 trees, 22 boundary, 19 retained, 25 being removed out of 44 trees and just trying to understand the numbering.

And really, I can see in the recommendation that staff are asking to do as much protection of trees, but just wanting a better number of trees on the property. I’ll go to staff for some clarification on numbers of trees currently on the property and being preserved through this. Through you, Mr. Chair, at this time, I don’t know the exact number.

However, I can get that given to you. But as indicated in the recommendation, the landscaped architect did ask for an updated tree preservation, and that will be also dealt with through the site plan approval process. Councillor, okay. Okay.

Councillor Frang, how’s the motion going? Good. (laughs) Oh, I did say it was. So I did send one to the secretary, but I did not add sidewalks.

So maybe if we get it up, I just added one of one bullet to the preexisting motion. So perhaps Councillor Hopkins may want to add another bullet. Okay, can you pull that up? Okay, so we should have that.

Okay, we should have that motion in front of us. Councillor Hopkins, are you wishing to add some further items to that? If I’m able to do that, I haven’t read the motion yet, but I think it’s important to be specific to the sidewalk along West Mount Crescent among the property. So Councillor Frang, please go ahead.

Thank you, yes, and I was gonna ask a follow-up to staff. So as you can see, part XII of the existing lists of things to look at for site plan consideration. I added include enhanced privacy aspects such as seven foot fences and more coniferous trees planted every, and then I put XX feet because I’m not sure what the, I know that it was mentioned what the existing normal amount is, but I didn’t know what an enhanced amount of every couple meters or every couple feet. So I was hoping staff would actually be able to suggest what, how many, every couple feet would be enhanced to what we do now.

And then hoping to add the sidewalk in addition. What is staff regarding tree planting? And I know in my experience, trees grow. And so you think there’s enough space between them but then 10 years from now you’re taking trees out because they’re growing into each other.

So maybe some comments regarding privacy in general. And I’d also like to hear cedar hedge or cedar planting was also mentioned as well. I think what we’re after here, I think the public or the neighbor brought for some good concerns about privacy along the edge of their property and the parking lot and the height. So I think what the counselor is after is some way to address that through fencing, trees, and I’d like to throw in hedges as well ‘cause I think hedges are a terrific site.

So over to you staff, please go ahead. Okay, thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. Enhanced landscaping is just that if we, to your point in terms of spacing and separation, depends on the species of tree and such.

So we wanna make sure there’s enough roots and the ultimate canopy. In terms of enhanced landscaping, you can specify the type of landscaping treatment hedges, anything to ultimately achieve the screening effect that you wanna bring along in terms of this feature. So those are the elements that help us to, through the site plan process, address that screening and combination, it could be combination of fencing with vegetation enhanced through hedges and such. Councillor.

Thank you. I’ll just work on a little bit of language then to reflect that and send it over to the secretary. And then I would still like to add a bit of the sidewalk motion but I’m not really sure exactly what we are directing staff to do with sidewalks. Claire, are you able to add a clause regarding concerns and sidewalks that Councillor Hopkins raised?

Through the chair, I have a part XII with respect to the installation of a sidewalk along the westbound crescent. Councillor, is that what you’re after? So Councillor Frank is almost there finishing your motion. Do I have a seconder for that motion?

Councillor Hopkins. Any questions or comments on the motion has amended so we have a motion made and seconded. And sorry, Councillor van Mirbergen, please go ahead. Chair, if you could give me some guidance, would I be speaking strictly on this proposed motion or the overall?

Well, we have a motion on the floor but I think I’m fully willing to let you speak to the whole, the application. Okay. And the motion on the floor is to approve staff’s recommendation with certain amendments regarding privacy, the sidewalks and privacy. Yeah, so please go ahead.

Well, firstly, I’d like to say it’s certainly appreciated and appreciated by the neighborhood that any constructive mitigation that can be implemented is well appreciated. In regard to the sidewalks, I just want to clarify, that would be following our existing sidewalk implementation policy, would that be correct? I’ll go to staff on that. Through you, Mr.

Chair, this is not a plan of subdivision. This is a matter going through site plan. So they’d only be compelled to do the sidewalk on the site in front of the development. So the sidewalk would just be specific to this application, Councillor.

Oh, so just so I’m clear, this would strictly pertain to the property in front of the proposed development? Yes, yes, that’s correct. Yes, that’s correct, Councillor. All right, thanks for that clarification.

So as stated, this very specific little neighborhood has been asked to endure and bear a quite significant increase in intensification, particularly with not only this development, but also, of course, the one literally across the street with the 95 units on the one acre lot. Couple all of this together with at least two more developments very nearby. So again, mitigation is paramount in terms of the negative effects of this on this neighborhood. What I’ve heard loud and clearly with regard to 614, from the neighbors immediately nearby, and specifically with regards to the family that lives at 615 West Mount Crescent.

So currently the proposal is to have the entrance and exit from 614 to align directly across from the driveway of the family at 615. And of course, they’re very concerned about having dozens and dozens of headlights shining into their own on a daily basis, not only that, but their ability to back out of their own driveway is somewhat compromised. I think it makes a lot of sense, and that’s the concern that’s been brought forward to me, to move that alignment from 614 a little bit further north to perhaps align with 608, the new 95 unit development, so that they align with each other and don’t affect any single family home or homes directly. I’d like to ask staff if that might be doable.

Staff, could you comment on the counselor’s concerns regarding exits? Through the chair, if it was the desire of the committee to change that alignment, that could be something done and dealt with through the zoning by-law. We’d have to change the zoning by-law to make that enforceable though. Okay, we could address that here at committee counselor.

And I’ll look to the mover of the original motion, if the mover would be willing to add one more clause, and the concern of the counselor is that instead of having the exit or the driveway align with a private residence across the street, if it would move to align with the development, the six-story development that we recently approved with that exit to concerns of backing out and headlights, et cetera, would you be okay to add that? ‘Cause staff has indicated that that is something that could come through us. Go ahead. Thank you.

Before I entertain that, I would like to check the staff to understand the feasibility of doing that. I know that they just kind of briefly said that that may be as possible, but just from, I don’t know if any traffic engineers have had an analysis on that or if any other staff want to comment on that further? Yeah, okay, I’ll go to staff on the feasibility of that request or direction. Through the chair, the preferred access location is where it is from a transportation perspective.

There was some flexibility to look at the access across from 608 commissioners, but those are the two main locations with the current proposal being the preferred location. Councillor. Thank you, yes. I guess I’m a bit torn because I’m hearing from staff that it is possible, but I’m also hearing from staff that the primary preferred option was the one that has been submitted to us for review.

So I’m having a bit of confusion ‘cause I just don’t know if they’re like 50/50 weighted or if like the one that’s primarily being suggested is like the 95% one that we’ve preferred and then the other locations made it 5%. So I am running into a bit of a confusion and trying to pick which preferred option given that both are viable. If both are 50/50 viable, great, let’s do it. I’m happy to put it across from the large development, but I don’t know, I guess what, which one is preferred?

No, maybe I can go to staff and coach it this way. What’s the reasoning behind? Is it just because this is the way it’s been designed and we require a whole redesign of the project if the driveway was moved or are there other reasonings that we’re not seeing? Through the chair, the ideal is opposite, access is opposite each other.

So that’s from a transportation perspective and that’s why the two identified access points. From the zoning by-law, the way we’ve prepared it from a planning perspective, we dealt with a height. So higher heights, north of the access and lower heights. So it’s from three stories, the access and then two stories.

So we would have to revise the by-law if we change the access location to opposite 608 commissioners road access. So it’s a combination of this transportation. It would have to be 50/50 if you’re asking that question, but from a planning perspective, we’re also transitioning the heights of the townhouses. Councilor.

Sorry, now I’m feeling like even more confused. Where are the heights of the townhouses? Like I thought we were just talking about the entrances to this facility, so now I’m confused about the heights as well. Could staff kind of tie in like how the height would be affected if the access point was changed?

And also to comment on what I think is being touched on here by Councilor Van Mirberg and is to have access points match up, but just a different access point to the west of the property across the street. Through the chair, in regards to the heights, they are kind of related to where the access aligns. So part of the recommendation was to permit those higher heights north of the access location. So we’re very specific to the depth on the property of where those heights could be placed.

So if you move the access point, it could result in some of the three stories, potentially looking to go further south. So we may have to update our by-law or restrict it to a lesser depth. So right now we’re at 125 meters. We may have to restrict it to 80 meters, depending on how the site plan gets revised.

So it’s a little technical in how we were controlling the heights on the property, but it was mainly based on the location of that access. So by moving it north, it would have impacts on proposed development. Just to the second point, I think the other part of the transportation reasoning for 614 with the access across from there is distance from Commissioner’s Road. They look to push it back as far as they can from a safety perspective.

And so that the current location gives them the safer location on the property. Councilor. Thank you, then from what I just understood, I think I’m, I prefer not to add this amendment to my amendment. Thank you, just given that staff are saying from a safety perspective and from how high the townhouses are a perspective, it’s better if it stays where it is.

So I’m sorry Councilor Vameer-Bergam, but I would not like to add your addition to my current amendment. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from staff? I’m sorry, from committee members.

I would like to, from the chair, permit me. If change, I’m having a little trouble here with you. You want to be farther away from commissioners, but you have to project across the street. We were closer to commissioners.

So I’m having trouble jiving that there is a change that’s needed to the by-law here, maybe some other considerations. Would it referral work in this type of thing for staff to look at the implications of changing the access point to this project? Through the chair, I think a referral would work well to give us time to look at it and come back with a correct by-law. Okay, so I probably shouldn’t make a referral from the chair, so I’ll ask Councilor Lewis to take the chair, please.

Thank you, I was gonna suggest that I could move it, but I will take the chair and I have Councilor Layman on the speaker’s list. Okay, so I will make a motion to refer this to look at changing the access point to match up with the access point from the project closer to commissioners on the west side of Westmouth, and then we’ll leave it at that, so back to you, Acting Chair. So just to be clear, Councilor, you’re suggesting that we refer with all of the changes that Councilor Frank has suggested in hers, as well as some consideration to look at the change in the entry point. Correct, that ties up with a nice bow.

Just so that we can give the clerk some guidance on what to type up for a referral, and I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that. I don’t know, because I don’t have the Zoom with me, is Councilor Hillier with us? Oh, he is, okay, and he’s indicating he’ll second that. So we have a mover and a seconder for a referral, and we’ll look to see if there are speakers to the referral and I’ve got Councilor Frank.

Thank you, yes, I just wanted to make sure that if we were freeing this back to staff, it’s not direction to make the entrances line up. It’s more direction to show us what would happen if we entertain a different entrance location, ‘cause I am not super keen on having the entrances line up if it means we’re losing space in these units, so I don’t want to direct staff directly to do that. I want to see what it would look like and what we would lose or gain if we have a different entrance location. And I will go back to the mover of the referral to get some clarity from him on his intention of whether he’s directing a specific location or simply an alternate location.

Councilor Layman. Yeah, I would, it makes sense. Well, I won’t speak for traffic from what I’ve heard you’d like to align, but yeah, on an alternate location, I think is what the Board Councilor is expressing concerns about. So an alternate location is fine for me on the referral.

Thank you, Councilor. So just, I’m just gonna check with staff then so that their understanding on the referral would be to consider how an alternate location would impact and you would come back to us with basically this option or the alternate option. Yes, that’s correct, we understand, thank you. Thank you for that, Ms.

McNeely. Do we have any other speakers on the referral? I do not see anyone on Zoom and I do not see anyone in chambers. So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the motion to refer.

I wanna ask about the cedar trees. I didn’t understand if you guys are gonna do it or not. To the acting chair, do you mind if I just read that to make sure I have it correct? Councilor Layman.

Thank you. I just, apologies, I should have done it through you, Acting Chair. Just adding the items that Councilor Frank had in her original motion, so that everything’s included on the referral back. Okay, so if I’m hearing correctly, procedurally, I think what we’re doing is referring the motion as amended back to civic administration with the additional direction to report back on an alternate entrance for this development.

Go to Councilor Hopkins next. Yes, I just wanna be clear that we are just looking at another entrance, I don’t think I’m prepared at this moment to make a decision on that entrance, but that would be with the referral coming back. I just wanna make sure I got that clear. And I see some heads nodding, so it’s fine.

Yes, I was gonna say, I saw Ms. McNeely giving us the nod that that would be indeed their intent, so there are any further speakers to the referral on the motion as amended. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote now. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

And with that, I will return the chair to Councilor Lehman. Thank you, that completes our scheduled items. There are no items for a direction, or deferred matters or additional business. Councilor Ramen, I see you have your hand up.

Thank you and through you, I just had a comment under additional business. Please go ahead. Thank you, and I’ll keep it quick. My comment actually related to the climate emergency tool.

First, I wanted to thank staff for the work that they’re doing on providing additional information there with the reports, and I know that I’ve really, it’s helped me to better understand, for instance, not only the climate emergency, but also the different lenses by which we are looking at things from this perspective. I just wanted to add a comment related to schools, and what I noticed in the climate emergency piece. I think it’s great that we’re including information on proximity to schools. What I’m wondering if we may be able to look at is proximity to available schools.

I think it’s really important for all of us to think through where we are when it comes to schooling right now in the city of London. I can speak for Ward 7, the majority of the schools in the Northwest are at capacity, and kids are being bused 20 minutes away, in some cases, to get to the closest school. Being a former school board trustee, I can tell you those were very difficult decisions to make. There was a lot of work done on an accommodation plan at the elementary panel, and I think it would be helpful, as this is also a public-facing document, to have that lens of the fact that our decisions have implications when it comes to schooling, and then that also, in itself, plays into the climate emergency as well.

Thank you. Council others? Thank you, and through you, Chair, I think Councilor Roman raises a good point. I know I have some availability in some of my elementary schools, but I know that’s not the same elsewhere.

But as it was raised, I just wanted to take an opportunity to share with the committee and those here that some small good news on the horizon is that the planning application that was before the last Council for land for Northwest school has gone ahead. It is no longer under appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal. The arrangement is already in place with the school for the use of the land for a school. And so not only are we getting the new homes up there, but the land in place for the school is there, and it did not take longer than expropriation, it would have, it was actually much shorter.

So hopefully that’s some relief insight if the school board can hopefully get some funding from their friends at the provincial government level to actually build it. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. And just to follow up, yes, absolutely new Northwest school.

Absolutely grateful to see that come online as well as some other new schools in the area. I do think though, as we continue to support more housing, we have to be able to also continue to support the case for more schools in our communities. And we do that by drawing attention to the fact that all of these applications were approving, we’re approving housing that doesn’t go along with room for our schools. And ultimately, education is all of our responsibilities, making sure that we have kids in schools that are not overcrowded is our responsibility.

And I do think that as we’re making these decisions, we have to be mindful of the fact that this has implications for our school systems. Thank you. I know this is additional business, and this is a subject, I think, that a lot of us, we share concerns for, but I just want, I would like to have staff, just comment on, you know, we do not dictate where schools are located that comes from the school board. How do we, when we are working with applications and developments, just kind of a refresher course for all of us, how do we integrate planning for schools?

Through the chair, so there’s a few different ways where we try to, we work very closely with the school boards. One is through any kind of OPA or as a process where we’re looking at official plan amendments that we ensure that we have those lands designated through secondary plan processes, we also do that. As well, even through our development agreement processes, there’s, if there’s obligations that need to be made as far as allocating lands and to maintain those lands for certain periods of time, to be able to be used for school sites, then that’s something that definitely does flow through us. However, it really does depend on that funding piece as well, and I think that’s something that we’ve heard from school boards working with them very closely, that in order for them to move forward with these projects and to purchase the lands that are allocated to the planning process, that’s something that’s very much that they need.

We’ve worked very closely with all the school boards to ensure that what we can do as far as the city’s perspective is connect them with the development, the developers, and make sure that these lands are designated and maintained. So we do have a role, we’re definitely not the primary, we’re just trying to facilitate her, but still a very important role, and we wanna make sure that we work with both the developers and the school boards moving forward. Thank you, you know, the corner of my eyes of Councillor Hopkins might raise her hand. No, I appreciate the conversation.

My question was going to be how we as a city are responsible. I know I have a number of subdivisions that come forward in Ward 9, and I always look within those subdivision agreements that land is set aside, and that’s basically all I can do other than checking in with developers year to year explaining to them and encouraging them to work with the school board to make sure that they’re working to get the schools built. We seem, and I agree with Councillor Rallman, social infrastructure like our schools, lags behind, and I’m frustrated from time to time. I don’t wanna set up our expectations that we can do something.

That is the challenge I have from time to time other than overseeing the agreements coming forward, having conversations with the development community, but really making sure that the community understands that as well that I’m really not able to get a school built. And the length of time given is years. It’s not a year or two, and I know there’s a complete turnover with even council itself, you know, from the start of a conversation and in a subdivision agreement to when it’s gonna take place, and I think it’s an important conversation, definitely like you have, and a reminder as well. And I do encourage residents as well to reach out to trustees.

I think they need to know what’s going on with the development in the area and that relationship. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I want to thank Councillor Rallman for highlighting the climate emergency climate tool that’s being used and summary sheet. I think staff have done a really good job of finding some key areas that we should be considering. And I also think it’s great that Councillor Rallman has also noted that the climate emergency impacts everything, including how we develop our city and making sure we have walkable communities for adults and for kids. So I also want to echo my thanks for staff, and I appreciate all the planners that are using it individually on each application, ‘cause I think it will help me better make decisions when I can see that kind of information very readily.

So thank you. Thank you. Any other additional business? Seeing none, we have one matter, confidential matter.

So I would like a motion to move in camera. Councillor Frank, can I go seconder on that? Councillor Lewis, call the vote. Closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. (laughing) I’m voting. Okay, let’s stop in. I’m going back in so we can stream.

Oh. Thank you. We’re good, thank you. Thank you.

I’m going to go to Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And I’m pleased to report that progress was made on the item for which we went in camera. As listed on the public agenda, that is Solicitor Client Privileged Advice Litigation, Potential Litigation with respect to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan and the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Thank you. I look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. All in favor, hand vote.

What have we got? How have we got six votes? We only have five people here. (laughing) Thank you.

Thanks, folks. Thank you.