April 11, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Building Division Monthly Report - February 2023

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (2.1) Building Division Monthly Report - February 2023

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

2.2   Draft Plan of Subdivision - Three Year Extension - Stoney Creek South Subdivision - 1300 Fanshawe Park Road East (39T-04512)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (2.2) 3 Year Extension Stoney Creek - 1300 Fanshawe Park Rd E (39T-04512)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 700531 Ontario Limited, relating to the property located at 1300 Fanshawe Park Road East, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the request for a three (3) year extension of the draft plan of subdivision approval for the draft plan submitted by 700531 Ontario Limited, prepared by AGM Ltd., certified by Bruce S. Baker, Ontario Land Surveyor (Plan No. 9-L-4901, dated August 30, 2016), as redlined amended, which shows one (1) commercial block, two (2) high density residential blocks, one (1)  medium density residential block, two (2) road widening blocks, and two (2) 0.3 m reserves, all served by one (1) new secondary collector road/neighbourhood connector (Blackwell Boulevard) SUBJECT TO the revised conditions appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A”.

Motion Passed

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (2.3) Amendments to Planning By-laws - Delegation and Signing Authority

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the administration title changes:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. CP-1502-129, as amended, being “A by-law to delegate certain authority of Municipal Council to consent to or grant permits for alterations to heritage designated properties” by deleting all references to the title “Manager, Community Planning, Urban Design and Heritage” and replacing them with the title “Manager, Community Planning”;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. C.P-1470-218, as amended, being “A by-law to delegate the authority to require an applicant to provide information and material in support of various Planning Act applications”, to:

i) delete all references to the title “Manager, Long Range Planning, Research and Ecology” and replace them with the title “Manager, Long Range Planning”; and,

ii) delete all references to the title “Manager, Community Planning, Urban Design and Heritage” and replace them with the title “Manager, Community Planning”; and,

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. CP-23, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for the Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authority”, by deleting all references to the title “Manager, Current Planning” and replacing them with the title “Manager, Current Development”.

Motion Passed

2.4   376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9576)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (2.4) 376, 378, 380, 382, 386, 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9576)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development and on the direction of Planning and Environment Committee, based on the application by East Village Holdings Limited, relating to the property located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R8 (R8-4) Zone and a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(2)) Zone TO a Residential R8/Temporary (R8-4/T-) Zone and Business District Commercial Special Provision/Temporary (BDC(2)/T-) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to select native plants, shrubs and trees for the landscaping, with a focus on four season screening plants; it being noted that planting decisions will reside with the City’s Landscape Architect to work with the Applicant at the time of the Site Plan review.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Modifications to Public Site Plan Holding Provisions as a Result of Bill 23 (Z-9588)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (3.1) Modications to Public Site Plan Holding Provisions as a Result of Bill 23

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 the h-5 and h-217 Holding Zones, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 11, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the h-5 and h-217 Holding Zone to exempt Public Site Plan Meetings for residential developments with 10 or fewer units in accordance with the provisions of Bill 23;

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

  • M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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 is consistent with the Planning Act, as amended through Bill 23 which exempts residential developments of 10 or fewer units; and,

  •    the recommended amendments support Council’s goals in the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan, to improve the delivery of service through streamlined Council’s decision-making process.

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)

3.2   Zoning By-law Amendment - 2016 Huron Street (Z-9575)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (3.2) 2016 Huron Street (Z9575)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application of The Corporation of the City of London relating to the property located at 2016 Huron Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting April 25, 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 Light Industrial (LI1) Zone, a Light Industrial (LI2) Zone, a General Industrial (G1) Zone, and a Holding General Industrial (h*GI1) Zone, TO a Light Industrial (LI2) Zone, and Open Space (OS4 and OS5) Zones;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would consolidate the zoning, simplifying the future development of the site.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   Housekeeping Amendment to The London Plan (O-9555)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (3.3) Housekeeping Amendment to The London Plan (O-9555)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated April 11, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, to amend The London Plan, by correcting errors and omissions, update references to older terminologies, and incorporating Council’s approved amendments to the 1989 Official Plan into The London Plan;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application based on the amendment improving clarity and consistency on the overall policies and maps in The London Plan.

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. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment - Street Width Policy Review (OZ-9584)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (3.4) Street Width Policy Review (OZ-9584)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to required Street Widths:

a) the by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, TO AMEND The London Plan, the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to clarify the planned street widths for the Main Street Classification, and modify the process for permitting alternative street widths; and,

b)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to remove Road Allowance Requirements from Section 4.21, and delete Sections 4.21.1 and 4.21.2;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

it being noted that the Municipal Council approves this application based on the amendments preventing unnecessary Zoning-By-law Amendments solely for a deviation from the required street width.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   Zoning By-law Amendment - 300-320 King Street (Z-9570)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (3.5) 300-320 King Street (Z-9570)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Zelinka Priamo Ltd., on behalf of Royal Host GP Inc. and Holloway Lodging, relating to the property located at 300-320 King Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 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 holding Downtown Area (h-3DA2D350)) Zone TO a holding Downtown Area Special Provision (h-(  )*DA2(_)) Zone;

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

i)  to ensure sufficient amenity space has been provided, the amount of outdoor amenity space as presented on the architectural drawings should remain;

ii)  to ensure the development represents uniqueness and individual creativity to develop a landmark and contribution, the proposed development should generally reflect the middle portion of the tower as submitted on the architectural drawings with materials and an architectural expression; 

iii) to ensure the built form enhances the pedestrian environment, the ground floor and podium facades should provide depth and variation; 

iv) provide a variety of bird-friendly window glazing along the King Street ground floor façade, to create visual interest and sightlines for sense of safety; as well as protect birds from collision;

v) design the space between the building and the street to have an urban character and an appropriate mix of hard- and softscape. Include street trees and design pedestrian routes to follow natural desire lines;

x) to ensure impact from wind, consideration will be given to the common amenity terraces to include wind screens on Level 6 predicted to experience wind conditions suitable for sitting to the immediate north and south of the tower, Level 33 and 35 predicted to be suitable for sitting;

xi)  to mitigate the risk for indirect impacts on the built heritage resource – The Delta Armouries Hotel, a strategy to carry out a pre-condition survey, vibration monitoring and post-condition survey should be developed by a licensed engineer preferably with heritage experience;

xii) the property should be subject to a vibration assessment prior to the commencement of construction to establish a “Zone of influence” and vibration monitoring and control system and policy be developed and implemented to ensure levels remain below the accepted threshold during all construction activities, to ensure there are no indirect impacts to adjacent structure, of  particular note is the Delta Armouries Hotel at 325 Dundas Street. Vibration monitoring should be carried out by an individual with previous knowledge of heritage structures and the impact of vibration on heritage resources; and,

xiii)  the recommendations outlined in the noise study including roadway and railway mitigation measures be implemented and a more detailed noise assessment will be required at the time of site plan review to determine specific noise control measures for the building itself; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended zoning generally implements the site concept submitted with the application. As part of the application review process a revised site plan concept was submitted with minor revisions including a new height of 112.0 metres; however, which is still within the 35-storeys as originally proposed;

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

-    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being 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 land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, as well as enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns. 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 Downtown Place Type, facilitating a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use city;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to Our Move Forward: London’s Downtown Plan, by providing for a landmark development within the downtown core; 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of 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.

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)

3.6   Comprehensive Review of the London Plan: Terms of Reference (O-9595)

2023-04-11 Staff Report - (3.6) Comprehensive Review of the London Plan - Terms of Reference (O-9595)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Plan Comprehensive Review:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate the Comprehensive Review, based on the Terms of Reference appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix ‘A’; and,

b) the Terms of Reference appended to the staff report dated April 11, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE CIRCULATED to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Prescribed Agencies, and to development and community stakeholders;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

-    J. Zaifman, London Homebuilders Association;

-    R. Zelinka, London and Area Planning Consultants;

-    C. Colvin, Ontario Federation of Agriculture (Lambton-Middlesex);

it being noted that the presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

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

6.2    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals arising out of The London Plan 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 5:58 PM to 6:25 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:27 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, 15 minutes)

Just doing a sound check, sound check. I can hear you, Jerry, can you hear me? I can, your volume’s a little low, but I can, yes. Yeah, I’m working on trying to get my headset connected.

I’ll try again in just a moment. Okay, that sounded better right there, but also, yeah, sounds good, thanks. This is your captioner, Michelle. Would you like captions in Zoom or only the external link?

I believe just the external link. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s four o’clock.

I’d like to call the seventh meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to order. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the City website. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, Lenapeiwak, and Adawanirang.

We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of 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 TAC or PEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. At this point, I will look for any disclosures of Pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move on to the consent items. I will ask at this point, if anyone would like any consent items to be pulled.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. Could I pull 2.4 and then I have questions on 2.2. Any other consent items that committee members would like to see pulled?

Okay, I’ll open the floor to any questions or comments regarding 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. And also, if someone would like to move all three of them, that’d be fine too. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I have a question regarding 2.2, so the extension of the subdivision. I was just curious, so I think this is the fourth three-year extension, and given that the land has been sitting in limbo and is just kind of static, I’m wondering if there’s any opportunity to work with the applicant to have some native seeds being planted, perhaps around the commercial area, which doesn’t seem to have a lot of movement. So I’m just wondering through the chair to staff, if there’s an opportunity to see if there could be some native seed planting, recognizing not like trees or shrubs or permanent items. I’ll go to staff on that question, Councillor.

Thank you, through the chair. Yes, we can have the discussions with the applicant, seeing if there’s some opportunities that they could plant some seeds in that area to help grow in the interim until they come in for registration. Councillor. Thank you, and just following up to that, I’m wondering, I think this is the third, fourth, or fifth subdivision extension we’ve seen.

Many of the subdivisions are kind of moving out to 10 plus years of development. The land is just kind of sitting there somewhat uselessly. I’m just wondering if there’s any way, kind of as a policy or moving forward to have areas that we imagine will be static for many years, if there’s a way to, through a policy, work with the applicants to put along native seeds, managing, and sometimes they will plant oats or something, which is kind of nice for pollinators, but is there any opportunity to have that be a more formalized process where if they know they’re not gonna build anything there for 10 years, we could ask that they plant native seeds in the meantime. I’ll go to staff, through the chair.

The intention with anyone that’s bringing forward one of these applications is that they will be going quite quickly. So the ideal in all of our situations is that if we allow a three year expansion, that they do it within three years. Now the marketplace dictates when some of these folks move forward. So the ideal is that they are moving ahead very quickly, but there might be opportunities that in the future we can include that as part of the conditions that if you don’t move forward within this period of time, then once you come up for the next application deadline, then you would take some kind of action related to seeding.

So that’s something that we can incorporate into the future, but the ideal is actually you move forward with your application on a timely basis. Councillor. Thank you, I’m very excited about that. ‘Cause I acknowledge that ideally, yes, they move forward within three years and they’ve got some shovels in the ground once they have approval.

But as we’ve seen kind of with this being, I think the fourth extension, it’d be nice to maybe have a bit of a consequence if you don’t move forward with this. And then if you want another three extension, you’re gonna have to do some native plants in the meantime. The only other question I had for 2.2 and through the chair, was the commercial asset in the corner. My understanding is it’s not really been able to move forward based on market conditions.

And I’m just wondering if there’s any interest from the applicant to have that be perhaps a mixed use where the ground floor is commercial and above is residential. Given that residential has been moving forward fairly significantly in the community. A lot of staff on Councilor’s question. Through the chair, we can have conversations with the applicant about that.

It would be driven by their requests if they want to look at a change of the land use in that portion of the site, but we can bring that up in our conversations with them. Councilor. Thank you, that’s all my questions for 2.2. Any other questions or comments?

Could I get a motion to approve the consent items? Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Frank. Thank you, is that 2.1 to 2.3? 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, correct.

Perfect, thank you. There’s no other questions or comments. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

We have consent item 2.4, Councilor Schuyler, you want to pull, so I will go to you first. Thank you, yes. I was hoping, and I chatted briefly with staff after this parking lot came to us at last PEC, but working with the approval authority for indicating to the applicant to have native species, like native four season species, included as part of the landscaping design work. So I did send along a bit of an amendment to the clerk.

So just hoping to see if there’s interest at this committee to direct staff to work with the applicant to do native plans. Clerk, did you get that wording from the Councilor? Is it up, so other committee members and visiting Councilors can see? Do you like maybe just add it again?

If you could, I believe that would be what the Councilor’s intentions are. The motion is now put up with the additions. If you refresh your screens, you’ll be able to see the revised motion. Councilor, are you moving as amended, that motion?

Yes, and I would like through the chair to confirm a staff that that language is acceptable. I’ll kind of wordsmith it a bit, but I just want to confirm that they’re— Okay, before I look for a seconder, I’ll go to staff to make sure that they’re comfortable with that language. Thank you, through the chair. Yes, we’re comfortable with that language, thank you.

Okay, and Councilor Hopkins is seconding it. Now I will put that on the floor for discussion or comments. I’ll give you a few minutes to read it for you. Does everyone had a chance to peruse?

Okay, seeing no questions or comments, then we have a motion moved and seconded, so I will call the vote on that. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, so we will move on to schedule items 3.1. The first is modifications to public site plan holding provisions as a result of Bill 23.

We have discussed this coming in committee and at council, so I would like to call on staff right now to kind of give us a brief kind of report, a presentation on the Bill 23 portions and then the implications on site planning. Hi, I’m Stuart, the sign planner. This zoning by-law amendment follows Bill 23 by exempting public site plan meetings for residential proposals of 10 or fewer units. Bill 23, also known as the Moore Homes, built faster act of 2022, exempts residential developments of up to 10 units from site plan control.

Staff have become aware of one or more proposals seeking such developments. Currently, this would subject developers to a cost of roughly $1,400 and a month delay. This technical amendment would save money and time for both the city and developers by allowing an interim use for the holding provision ensuring it does not need to be removed by the applicant for developments of 10 or fewer units. This amendment is consistent with the provincial policy statement and the London Plan.

201 addresses have the H5 or H217 holding provisions that currently require public site plan meetings regardless of unit count, thank you. Thank you, I think in this instance, I’ll just go to the public first. So I’ll look for a motion from committee to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank.

I won’t just call that vote. Closing the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you. I see a gentleman is up on the gallery there.

So I will go first to you, please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Mike Wallace.

I’m the executive director of all the Euler London Development Institute. And you get my pleasure of hearing me four times tonight, I think. A relatively brief, I want to thank staff for the report and the explanation of how this was working. We had one concept in mind.

I think as an organization that this would be a fairly simple thing to do. And it is, I appreciate that this improves the process. And I didn’t understand quite at first, but I do now is very clever on staff’s part on making sure that somebody applies for 10 and then comes in for 10 later. I understand now why this process is the way it is.

And we appreciate all the work that staff have done on this. And this will be one of a number of process improvements. This is what we were looking for as an industry. And we thank staff for moving on this quickly.

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

Seeing none, I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone in the anti-rooms or online. No, so I will look to committee to motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank and motions and Councillor Hopkins seconds. I will call the vote.

Okay, I’ll open the floor now for questions and thoughts for staff. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and through you to staff.

I know in the report there are 73 subject sites with an H5 and one other site with another holding provision. And I just wanted to just make sure if the public has concerns or are there concerns out there, what would that process look like? I just want to follow up with the expectation of what the public is thinking. I’ll go to staff on that.

Thank you, through you, the Chair. The H5 amendment that’s before you tonight doesn’t remove the holding provision for those other sites. What it does is it exempts certain developments with ten or fewer units. We’ve surprisingly had a couple of them come up over the last couple of months where applicants who no longer require site plan approval based on bill 23, now are going to building permit and have to apply for a holding removal.

Somewhat unnecessarily, which creates time and is counter to bill 2023s in 10. For the rest of the city though, I would suggest that most of those will be more than 10 units and they will go through the regular process of a public site plan meeting before this committee and council. So really it’s just a technical adjustment for those kind of one-off scenarios, but I don’t see too many of these happening. Councilor?

Yeah, thank you for that. For the clarification, I wasn’t sure about the number there and it’s only for 10 units below and obviously with bill 23, I appreciate the efficiency in the report from staff for moving this forward. I think we all want to improve the process. So happy to support the recommendation.

Yeah, sorry, you’re moving it, Councilor. Okay, I would like a second, Councilor Frank and the other comments on this is another implication from a provincial legislative change on our staff. And I just want to say from the chair’s position, thank you. I know that things are coming, can come pretty quickly for your staff and I’m pleased to see how well staff are responding and I understand the challenges in doing the regular job of the department.

So those are my comments. Any other comments or concerns before I call the vote? Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, so we will move on to 3.2.

We have the staff’s report and recommendation in the agenda. I will look to see if the applicant is here would like to address the committee. So I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins.

I will vote on that. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you and I will ask one more time if the applicant would like to address the committee. Seeing none then I will open to the public for any people that would wish to address the committee.

Seeing none in the gallery, I will look to the clerk to see if there’s any online or as we see none there. So I will look to the committee for a motion to close. Other participation meeting, Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. So I’ll call the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll now I will go to the committee for comments, discussion, motions, Councilor Frank. Thank you and through the chair I have a question for staff.

I noticed that there are a couple of natural heritage features on the property and I was just curious as to know how they’re being protected currently and throughout the process. ‘Cause I did notice that there is a berm and then an unevaluated wetlands. I just wanna make sure they’re not being negatively impacted during this process. I’ll go to staff on that question.

For the chair, the natural heritage feature was evaluated quickly by the ecology staff and they requested a 15 meter buffer, essentially from the edge of where the wetlands was evaluated on the London plan. And that was the way that they said, basically set back and to believe it was an OS5 zone that was applied, Councilor. Thank you and just to follow up with these setbacks, I’m just curious, are they then like, is there fencing just to maintain that or how is that delineated? Although staff that through the chair, I don’t believe any fencing has been proposed, but basically these online would kind of act as a property line to kind of halt any development in that area, Councilor.

Thank you and final question. Just curious, again, as development maybe is going on, are there site visits that staff attend to just make sure that there’s like no building materials are getting into the wetland area or into the waterways? Staff. The chair, there’s two different stages of process here.

We’re talking about the zoning application today and the questions you’re asking are really more from a site plan perspective and then the compliance that comes with that. So, mitigative measures would be installed as part of requirements for construction and those measures would be built into the site plan process. Councilor. Perfect, thank you, it’s all my questions.

Councilor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And just a quick question to staff.

I just want to confirm that all the conditions like the holding provisions will still remain. Nothing really changes other than the fact that we’re bringing these two parcels together and to sort of, I guess it seems more efficient. Obviously, it’s the zoning change that we’re doing here, but I want to make sure nothing else changes. We’ll go to staff for the chair, that’s correct.

The one holding provision on the site was essentially, for lack of better words, left over from a previous holding, which is kind of no longer applicable since there is no, it was applicable for basically the north side of the Veterans Memorial Parkway. But for everything else, it’s just going all under one zone for pretty much mostly uses that are currently permitted. Councilor. Yeah, and just for further clarification, that holding provision still remains.

Or is it no longer in use? I was a little unsure. Go ahead, sir. So through the chair, it’s being removed, Councilor.

Appreciate that, thank you. Any other questions or comments and we still would like a motion on this? Councilor Hawkins. Yes, I’m happy to bring forward the recommendation.

I do think it simplifies the review process and happy to support it. Thank you, can I get a seconder, please? Councilor Frank. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Brings us to 3.3, which is a public participation meeting. It’s a housekeeping amendment to the London plan.

So I will look for a motion to open the BPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Lewis, call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So I will look to, if there’s anyone in the gallery, Mr.

Wallace, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, it’s Mike Wallace from the Executive Director of the London Development Institute. We appreciate this report.

I only have the first part of it ‘cause like 134 pages long. But just so Council or Committee understands what we do with the housekeeping report such as this for the London plan. We make sure our legal staff and our planning staff that we had on the London plan appeals review, the housekeeping pieces. I think this is the second report we’ve seen on housekeeping.

Just to confirm that they are housekeeping changes and that they have gone back to me. And yes, they are housekeeping changes. There’s only two things that I wanna let you know. I haven’t heard back from everybody on the maps.

There’s never a maps. We’re assuming that everything’s fine. But we just have to be sure. So we will let you know one way or the other before Council, if there’s anything that comes up that’s of interest, but we don’t think that will happen.

The other suggestion that we made that we’d like to be on the record for you and not planning on having you do anything with it tonight. But in section 16 or clause 1683, it is how it’s stated. A public site plan meeting will be required for the following. And number four is projects where zoning has been applied for additional height and density.

We think would be ideal as a housekeeping piece above the, to add the words, above the permitted upper maximum height. So we have indicated that to staff as a housekeeping piece, we don’t expect you to debate it this evening, but it’s something just to be on the record that we think is a housekeeping change. And other than that, we appreciate the report. And we’ll be back to you if there is any anomalies in the mapping that we find during our review.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments or I’m sorry, any people at which to speak to the committee? I don’t see anyone else in the gallery, talk with the clerk if there’s anyone online or in the other rooms, I’ll look to the committee to close the BPM. Councillor Frank motions.

I guess seconder, Councillor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’ll open the floor to the committee now for comments or questions. I’ll just address the address staff with the comment that was made.

Just in 16.83, there was a suggestion that they add above the permitted maximum height. What are staff comments on that proposed change? Through the chair, my name’s Justin Adam, I’m happy to comment on that. So the change to 16.83 is part of the terminology updates that were included in this housekeeping amendment specifically around bonus zoning.

So as you know, bonus zoning was a key piece of the plan when it was approved in 2016. However, changes to legislation since then have removed the ability to apply bonus zoning. So we’ve gone through the plan as part of this housekeeping and taken out any reference to bonus zoning. And so the language that was applied here was intended to be simple and straightforward and just applied to applications to increase height or density, which is where bonus zoning would have applied.

In terms of the suggested language from Mr. Wallace, I think there’s room to talk about updates to the staff recommendation. I would caution against using the upper maximum height though. So when bonus zoning applied, it applied above the standard maximum height up to the upper maximum height.

So I would suggest we could include language that added the phrase above the standard maximum height. However, this change that’s been suggested would go beyond the intent of the policy, even the original tent. And in my opinion, wouldn’t be considered a housekeeping change. It would be a pretty substantive change.

So we could consider language that changes it to above the standard maximum. I caution against changing the language to above the upper maximum height. So I will go to committee to see if there’s any willingness among committee members to make that small change. That staff seem to be okay with some 16.83 just adding at the end of that sentence above the standard maximum height.

If there are any committee members that would like to put forward that change. Councilor Frank. Thank you. I just want to ask a clarifying question ‘cause I think maybe I missed the last little bit.

So staff are suggesting what language for that section? Sorry, could you just reiterate it? ‘Cause I just want to make sure that what we’re suggesting is compliant with what staff are suggesting. Okay.

So 16.83, just adding to the end of that sentence above the standard maximum height. Not exactly what Mr. Wallace was suggesting what staff seem comfortable with that language. Would you be willing to move it?

Could I have a seconder for that, Councillor Lewis? So we have staff recommendation with that small change, any discussion before I call the little Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I think it’s been a long, long weekend for me. And I just want to understand the changes above the standard maximum height to the end of that sentence.

What exactly are we saying now? And just, I want to make sure that what is being proposed, I know it’s not what the development institute is looking for. But I’m just wondering why are we changing it and what does it do to what’s already— I’ll go still for that. Through the chair.

So we have standard height and we have upper maximum. What the request is to go above the maximum. And so what Mr. Adama has indicated is, then we’re changing, there’s context changes to the policy framework.

We’re trying to work within the spirit and intent of the bonus zone. So it’s, we have standard height and then we have the upper maximum. So there’s two ways of saying up to the maximum height, standard, sorry, the upper maximum height or above the standard. So we’re working within that realm.

I just also wanted to mention that we are looking as other streamlining efforts that we’re working through, build 23 changes and such. We’re actually looking at this whole policy in terms of public site plans. So I’m just offering that you may not want to spend too much time on it because you’re going to see a report probably May 1st that will change this altogether. Councilor.

Yeah, thank you for that. Because I would like to see consistency. And if we start changing over here and not going through over there, I think it could really create a little bit of confusion. I have no problem supporting this change, but I’m really glad to see that we will be reviewing further all our policies and hoping to see that consistency.

So when I read it, I have this, I know what to expect and what wording we’re using. So glad to hear that that’s coming forward and okay with supporting this. I’m not sure why we need to do it, but I’m okay to do it. Any other comments or questions?

I don’t care that I’ll call the vote. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, while we’re waiting, I just have another question through you to staff. Please go ahead.

On the review, I know this is the second review. Is it normally done every two years or three years or is there really a timeline? I’m just wondering, you know, a lot of these changes that are coming down from the province, how? Mr.

Adema. How are you doing? Through the chair, thanks for the question. So up until now, it’s been done sort of as we’re able or as sort of as needed.

So these changes really were originally driven by the approval of the London plan by the tribunal that happened last May. So it took us a few months to get this together and in front of you. Moving forward, what I hope now that we’re sort of finished with that appeal portion of the general policies that we can include this as part of the monitoring program, a report on monitoring of the plan will be brought forward every two years. So hopefully that will be the timeline for future housekeeping amendments.

Are we doing clerk? Okay, we should see the council, Fred. Thank you, sir. I just, I was wondering if we were including the language about that small little amendment that we just kind of made on the floor.

It should be there, I assume it should be there. ‘Cause we invented it. The clerk has a question for staff. Please go ahead.

Would staff be able to confirm if there would be a revised bylaw coming to be attached to the report with that change or would we be adding the change into the staff recommendation somewhere? Please go ahead. So the chair, we’d be happy to prepare a new bylaw. If that would be helpful.

Okay, I’ll go to the clerk. Thank you, through the chair. Because this is something that’s being introduced at this meeting, I don’t know if the planning staff can provide any additional language that should be included in the motion because I don’t think this was contemplated in the notice that was provided. So if there’s additional wording that’s required because of that, we would require that as well, please.

Okay, so I’ll go to staff to see if there’s some wording that the clerk has requested you could provide us. Sorry, through the chair, could you repeat the question? Clerk, would you mind repeating your question and concerns on what you’re looking for staff to do in this particular case? Thank you, yes.

So in terms of the recommendation that needs to be before the committee at the present time, I am presuming based on the discussion that was had that it would be that on the recommendation of the director planning and development, the attached proposed revised bylaw, which we would require an additional bylaw from staff to attach to the report, be introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on April 25th, 2023 to amend the London Plan by correcting errors and omissions, update references to older terminologies and incorporating council’s approved amendments to the 1989 official plan into the London Plan, as well as adding the wording above the standard maximum height to section 16.83. I’m not sure if that’s clear enough. And whether or not there needs to be any verbiage around no additional notice is required specifically related to the change because it’s a different bylaw. Go to staff on the clerk’s concerns.

Through you the chair, the language that the clerk has provided is correct. However, it would be sub four. So it would be underscore four would be to clarify that specific clause of the policy reference and also to include that no further public notice is required. Okay, the clerk’s going to post the newly drafted motion.

Councilor Frank. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm that making this small adjustment is not overly administratively burdensome because it sounds like this is all gonna get redone in a month. And so I’m tempted to just pull my amendment and save it on time and money and energy.

So I just want to know through the chair to staff. If I can just pull it. Yeah, that’s a fair question. I’ll go to staff.

Through the chair, that would be correct. We’re looking at potentially removing the whole policy 1683. However, while I have the call here, the language should be above the standard height to section 1683-4. Right now it’s showing 16.83, it’s all one policy.

There’s no dot in between. Councilor. Thank you, yes. I think I’m just gonna pull this and save.

Sorry, Jerry, everyone a bit of time and energy and after I pull it, I’d like to make a motion to just approve the staff recommendation. Okay, so you’re removing your amendment from the floor. So we’ll go back to the original staff recommendation. If someone would like to move that, Councilor Frank and seconded by Councilor Hopkins, any other concerns or questions?

I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So now we’re on to 3.4, which is regarding the official plan and zoning by-law amendment street with policy review.

And so I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM, Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I will look to the, thank you.

I’ll look to the gallery for any comments. Mr. Wallace. Yes, thank you.

One more after this. I really wanted to make the point here that we appreciate staff’s work on this. Again, as an industry, we appreciate the city working at trying to remove impediments to ZBA’s and OBBA’s that are not required, official plan amendments, OPA’s. Official plan amendments is zoning by-law amendments to improve the process so that we can get more houses built here in London, thank you very much for this work on the street with issue.

Thank you. Any other comments from public gallery? Any people online or any other rooms clerk? Okay.

Seeing none, then I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, I’ll put it on the item on the floor for committee members, Councilor Frank. Thank you and through the chair, I just have two questions for staff. One, I just wanted to confirm that the streets moving forward will still continue to follow the complete streets manual. All the staff.

That’s where the chair, yes, that is correct. Thank you, yes, and one follow-up question. And I think this one is just for my information and understanding. So this is an amendment to the official plan.

And then the previous staff we did was a housekeeping amendment. I’m just trying to get a sense of, are these two things different or the same? Are they appealable and what happens when we make these types of changes? No, I’ll go to staff for that information.

Through the chairs, so these are two separate official plan amendments that we’re recommending. They would both be subject to the appeal process laid out under the Planning Act, but they are separate and distinct applications. So the previous one we looked at was a housekeeping amendment, intended to just update and provide general changes that don’t affect the outcome. This one will affect more processes related to how we implement the official plan.

So instead of relying on zoning to identify specific widths, just keeping that all within the plan. But it is a separate official plan amendment. It is subject to the Planning Act process related to notice, appeals, et cetera, counselor. Thank you, and just to reconvene, I think I have the answer through the chair to staff.

So anytime we make a change to our official plan through amendments, it does become, that amendment becomes appealable. Staff, that’s correct. I mean, there are some specific instances currently in the Planning Act where types of policies aren’t subject to appeal, but everything we’ve brought forward tonight is subject to appeal, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you. That leads me to a question that I have when it comes to Table Two, which is the Main Street Classification proposed underlying street classification. So in this recommendation, we are making these changes that are in the schedule is my first question. And not knowing, so in this recommendation, it is being specific to certain parts of the roads that we’re making changes.

So I’m just trying to see how this helps Council understand the designation of these streets. And I’d like to be very specific to one road. I’ll use Bowler Road, which is in Ward 9. When we ask what the classification of the street is, we could be given two classifications.

So our question really should be specific to the certain area. I just wanna make sure I understand to know how to ask the questions when I’m looking at a street and what’s allowed and what’s not, when the street is still, say, Bowler Road, for instance, but one end is classified differently than another. And I’m just wondering how that is going to be presented to especially here at committee, but to Council to have a greater understanding of the classifications. Staff, through the chair, thank you for the question.

With regards to your first question, yes, this is an official plan amendment to change the main street street classification to the underlying higher order street class, as you identified in table two, then specifically to Bowler Road. So it is currently identified as a main street and that will remain. However, the underlying street classification, which is the Civic Boulevard, will apply as well. So you will see on map three, outlining all street classifications in the London plan.

You will see a hedged area with both the main street and the Civic Boulevard applying to that segment of Bowler Road. Thank you. Councillor? No, sorry, does it really go ahead?

Thank you, through the chair. I just wanted to just relay in terms of the London plan, what we were trying to achieve here. And as we appreciate, we have civic boulevards across the entire city. But in this instance, it would be the main street character and as you remember, the place type and the street classification work together.

So while Civic Boulevard, in this case, may be a higher order street, the main street type characteristics would come into play within this segment that we’re talking about in Bowler Road, for example, and other main street character. Because it would be on street parking, for example, and other characteristics that are unique, which are different than other places along Civic Boulevard. Councillor? Yeah, thank you for that.

So next time I’m inquiring about the classification of the road, I am going to be a bit more specific. I think to better understand the different classifications that we are approving here tonight. So thank you. Yeah, I just further to that for the reports to us.

You know, maybe extra attention. We brought to that as we, you know, get caught up in the new language and the classifications, et cetera. Other comments or questions? I also look for a motion to, with the Councillor with the staff’s recommendation.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any other comments or questions? Then I will call the vote. Motion to motion carries, five to zero.

Thank you. That brings us to 3.5 regarding zoning bylaw amendment for 300 to 320 King Street. I’ll look to any for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, and seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. And I will look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please, sir, go ahead, post your name, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee.

Can everyone hear me okay? Perfect, thank you very much. It’s Matt Campbell. Partner was the link of Briammo here on behalf of Holloway Lodging.

We’ve read the staff report. It’s an excellent staff report. I just want to thank staff for working so well with us and our client on this, this is a landmark development that we’re looking at in front of committee this evening. And we highly encourage committee to endorse the staff recommendation to approve.

We think this is going to be an excellent development. And for the committee’s information, our client has already progressed with a site plan application for the site. They’re eager to get going on it. Again, it’s a great building designed by the local farm and towns at architecture.

We think this is going to be an excellent addition to downtown. If there’s any questions the committee has, I’d be happy to answer any and all questions. Thank you. Thank you.

And I’ll just go to committee. I went over the opportunity to ask technical questions of staff. So at this time, before we go to the public, I’ll open that opportunity for committee members. Okay, seeing none, then I will go to anyone else that would like to address the committee in the public gallery, I don’t see anyone there.

I’ll look to the staff or to clerk to see if there’s anyone in the rooms or online. I hope there’s anyone on Zoom that would like to address the committee if you would let us know your online. Seeing no others that wish to address the committee, then I will go to council for error. Thank you and through the chair.

So I agree this would be a landmark building there. It’s 35 stories, pretty tall. 318 parking spots and it’s in the primary transit area right along the East Link. So this all conforms to London plan, but I do want to ask the applicant if he can answer.

I just wanted to have some specific questions on just the bedrooms. I do see that there’s one in two bedrooms, but I’m not seeing too many three bedrooms. And I did also want to see if there’s any way we could make maybe, if there’s any possibility for any type of negotiation to bring in some type of affordable housing for this building as well. I just wanted to ask the applicant just to answer some of those questions.

Okay, please, Mr. Campbell, if you would address three bedroom units and affordable housing aspect. Thanks, Mr. Chair and through you.

So there are one in two bedroom units that are being proposed in this development. Those are responding to market demand. What we typically don’t see is a whole lot of three bedroom unit demand in this specific geographic area. If this was in a different location, perhaps the market demand would be slightly different, but that’s what our client, they’ve done their market research, and that’s what they’re looking at to supply to this market.

And the, sorry, the other question in regards to affordable housing. Now, this particular building is not intended to be affordable housing that would otherwise be defined as such in the Provincial Policy Statement. That would be housing is provided below market rent. What we’re trying to do is add to the overall housing supply and that, coupled with other developments in the area, is hopefully going to put some kind of dent in the overall rental rates that we’re seeing skyrocket.

So not affordable housing for planning purposes, but again, hoping to add to the overall market supply to perhaps bring rents down overall throughout the downtown area over time. Councilor. Thank you through the chair. Thanks for that.

Adding to supply is definitely something the city needs. I was just wondering, is there any room, wiggle room, or any kind of discussion we can have to maybe even bring any types of anyone or two or three units that could be considered affordable? Not necessarily the 80% market rate, but anything less than market rate. Mr.

Campbell. Through the chair, we can certainly entertain those requests. I think what may be most appropriate is if we engage in a discussion with our client and any council members that may be interested in having that and perhaps staff can facilitate that discussion, we’re certainly open to having that. Councilor.

Thank you through the chair. Thank you for that. I do intend to reach out and maybe, I would like to have a conversation about possibly opening up some type of opportunity for some units that could be below market rate. So I would appreciate that and I will reach out to staff and we’ll contact you and the applicant, everybody who’s involved there and see if we can have something discussed that we can bring some type of units that would be considered less than market rate.

So I appreciate that, thank you. Any other questions of technical nature for staff? Councilor Frank. Thank you.

I was actually hoping to go to the applicant as well. Through the chair, my question was, was there any interest or discussion maybe for mixed use at the bottom? Given the location, it seems like an ideal spot for having commercial at the bottom than residential above. Mr.

Campbell. Through the chair, this is a mixed use building. There’s about 5,500 square feet of commercial on the ground floor. Councilor.

That is wonderful to hear and I need to read my reports more closely, but that’s great, thank you. Okay, any other technical questions for staff before I look for a motion to close PPM? We’ll look for a motion to close PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, second.

Councilor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you. Now I will put the item on the floor for committee or discussion, questions, motions.

Deputy Mayor, I’ll move the staff recommendation. Can I have a seconder, Councilor Hopkins? So we have a motion on the floor, it’s been moved and seconded, and I’ll go to Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I was actually hoping to do a little amendment. T.D.E.B.D.I.1. So I noticed under section B, item four is provide, or I think it’s four, provide a variety of window glazing along King Street, ground floor facade to create visual interest and sight lines for sense of safety. I’ve never seen this special provision before, so I was hoping to maybe add an amendment regarding bird-friendly window design.

We’ve heard a lot from the bird-friendly community regarding safe design and windows cause a lot of collisions because birds see them as mirrors and they fly into them because they think there’s trees around them. So given that we’re already requesting the applicant provide window glazing, I was hoping to see if we could add a little bit of bird-friendly window glazing so that the birds don’t keep flying until the window’s downtown. And I believe you submitted that wording to the clerk prior. I did, I did go up to four stories, but when I reread this, this is only on the ground floor, so I’m willing to take it back to the ground floor, but technically birds will fly up to four stories high and fly into the windows up to there.

Okay, so I’ll go to the mover of the motion to see if this can be considered a friendly amendment. Thank you, Chair. I see this as friendly, I can support this, although I just want to confirm with staff that they’re able to support that as well. It is their recommendation, so I want to make sure that that’s— Okay, can be consistent with their recommendation.

Yeah, I’ll go to staff to see if they’re comfortable with this. Through the chair, yes, we’re comfortable with it. I just want to caution you, though, we do not have standards, per se, in terms of bird-friendly design. We would probably look to the CSA standards, the Canadian standards.

However, it can be accommodated. Deputy Mayor. Yep, no more friendly. Okay, I’ll go to the seconder.

Okay, so we have a motion that’s been amended, moved and seconded, any other discussion? Comments? Councillor Hopkins. Is this just to the amendment or is this to— No, that was a friendly amendment, so we have a motion as amended.

Okay, if I could speak to the motion. Please go ahead. Thank you, and thank you to Councillor Frank for that slight amendment. I know when I read window glazing, I more or less thought it would be bird-friendly as well, but I think it just strengthens it, and I hope I’m glad to hear that staff are okay with it.

And I want to thank the applicant too for being very open to the Board Councillor for continuing those conversations, and really pleased to hear of that dialogue and the openness around the affordable housing piece. That is really, really important, and really pleased to hear that we’re going into site plan if what I heard correctly, I’m really glad to hear applications when they’re here that they are moving forward. It’s really important, very supportive. I think, I want to thank staff, a lot of work has gone into this recommendation, and I think this is a good news story without a doubt.

It is of Landmark, I think we heard it up in the gallery. It’s something that it’s exciting for our city, for our downtown, how we develop it, how we revitalize, how we re-engage our downtown. This is where I can see this development happening. Support of the density, I’m glad to hear that there may be opportunities down the road to converting the hotel, and to residential, if that’s a possibility that this zoning application still will allow for that compensation going forward when it comes to the density.

I do have a couple of concerns. I just want to throw out there the lack of green space. I think the landscaping is a bit of a concern. I know we’ve got the park not too far away, but I do think our downtown needs a little bit more green space parks.

And I think a grocery store too, but I know I just want to sort of throw that out, but I think this is an exciting application going forward and glad to, and hope that it will be coming soon. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor, any other comments? Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. And I’m just gonna pick up where Councilor Hopkins left off. I think this is a great application. I wouldn’t wander into conversion at the hotel.

I think that’s actually been withdrawn at this point. And frankly, the fact that RVC Place is back up to about 95% of its pre-COVID-19 business has started to show that there’s actually a real demand for those beds as the pent up desire to travel and have in-person conventions and things is back in full force. In fact, I know there was a great turnout last weekend for the music city UNESCO conference that we held and the global industry’s meetings the day before. So lots of use happening at the convention center now.

So I’m positive that the double tree will continue to see a demand for its rooms. But this is a great use of an underutilized space in the core. And I am going to emphasize to all of us what the applicant actually said, the single most important thing we can do for affordability of rental units in this city right now is increase our inventory. When we are under 2% occupants or vacancy in our rental market, once again, remind folks that CMHC suggests that it’s a 3% to 5% vacancy to even be considered in a healthy market.

And that typically leads more towards the 5% than the 3%. So we have a very significant shortage. And when that gets to the point where tenants are or prospective tenants are in bidding wars, the way people used to be in bidding wars for house purchases. And now they’re bidding to pay more in rent because they’re desperately worried that they will not find another place because of the lack of inventory.

That I think really underscores how important it is. Not just for the cranes that are in the sky right now to finish the work that they’re in, but hopefully you can get one of those cranes relocated over to King Street when they’re done building one of the towers that they’re building because I’d like to see those cranes stay in the skyline for the next five or six years while we get that inventory built up. So I certainly understand the Lord Council’s desire to see some potentially some affordable units in there. I think we always want to see that where it’s possible.

But I think the number one biggest thing we can do for affordability right now is get units built. So very supportive of this. And I think it’ll just add to that vibrancy downtown. The feed on the street, the commercial space on the ground floor that offers new opportunities for retail and office space.

These are all positive things. And I know it’s been a lot of work for our staff and the applicant back and forth. And I’m very happy to see where they’ve landed with this. Thank you, Councilor Frank.

Thank you, yes. I have a couple of questions, but just to preface it, well, I don’t disagree that supply is super helpful. I think given Deputy Mayor Lewis’s point about our rental vacancy rate being quite poor and we’ve seen rent increases, some of the highest rent increases across the country in the last couple of years. I don’t think that supply will ever directly help affordability.

I’d be curious to see if there’s any landlords that would say that they would drop their rent costs because there’s more options on the market. So while I agree to supply is great, true affordable housing definitely needs to be rent care to income or subsidized. So I do think the narrative that we just need more supply while comforting will not actually solve our affordability issues. And I just want to highlight that given some of the comments.

I did have a question for staff. This application I noticed is eligible for financial incentives under the downtown CIP. And I was just curious if we have done any math to see how much they’ll be receiving all those stuff. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. No, today we haven’t done any calculations, but it’s something I can definitely look into. Councilor. Thank you, yes.

To follow up on that, I was curious given the discussion of affordable housing, if they’ll be receiving the downtown CIP and then understanding that under bill 23, developers are able to have the fees waived for DCs if they are building affordable housing. I am wondering if we’ve looked into developers stack those incentives in the downtown area given we have a CIP and those DC rebates or is the CIP DC waiving? A little stuff through the chair. So we are exploring to aligning our CIPs with the new legislation because the purpose of the existing CIP is to waive that DC fee over with a payback over 10 years.

So at this time, we’re just going to be reviewing that and that’ll be also part of the conversation as part of our community improvement plan review as well. So stay tuned on that one, but at this point, we wouldn’t be suggesting that people can stack it. Councilor. Thank you, yes, and through the chair, I find that very interesting because I do think we do want to incentivize development downtown and we want to incentivize affordable housing.

So I am interested to see what the CIP review brings forward and it’s stackable. And I know for some of the funding I received for home improvements for green renovations, there are some that are stackable. So it is very, I think appreciated by folks who are trying to make that possible. I had another question and in this, I noticed that this building is at the maximum of 35 stories, which is the highest density we’re able to have in that area, I think across the whole city.

And I did notice that there’s a mention that tall buildings will be permitted when they achieve a high level of design excellence. And I’m just wondering has this achieved that excellence of stuff? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, we worked with the applicants and urban design and we feel that it has achieved that high level and will continue through the site plan approval process. Councilor. Thank you, only a couple more questions. Again, reading through some of the report, I noticed that, just trying to catch up to it.

Is it? Sorry, I’m just trying. I’m gonna skip the one. One other question I did have, so with shadow studies, I’m wondering is that something we require if it’s gonna be of a certain height?

Or is that just any time it’s an apartment building, there has to be a shadow study done? Good stuff. Through you, Mr. Chair, through our proposal summary process, we circulate and if I identify as shadow studies required, we ask for it for a complete application.

Councilor. Thank you. And maybe this is through the chair, a bit of a personal opinion, but I don’t see maybe the extreme value of having shadow studies if we are gonna be producing more and more info and we wanna be approving it. I guess what is the shadow study used for to make determinations?

Because for me, having some shade on an adjacent property is not a significant reason not to approve one, so I just don’t, it seems unduly burdensome. So I’m just wondering if there is a stronger purpose for shadow studies. Okay, I’ll go ahead with that question, but we’re talking about this particular application. I don’t wanna get too off topic here and start talking about shadow studies and importance, but I’ll go with it on this one.

I’ll have staff comment to the shadow studies. Through the chair, so shadow studies also help with determining the impacts of the building and the potential width and scale of it. So wider massing and wider built forms might have longer shadowing in certain areas, and that helps make a determination if the proposed built forms appropriate. Ms.

McEaly. Thank you through the chair, it also helps, let’s say adjacent to Victoria Park, for example, and casting shadows on natural heritage areas as well. So there is value for these types of studies, wind studies in the downtown as well, but as Riley indicated, we look at those as part of the proposal summary in terms of complete application and we weigh the pros and cons of requiring ports and studies. Councillor.

Thank you, yes, I’m relieved to hear that. I assume there was some purpose. I was just curious because so far, I’ve only seen people complain about shading their property and I didn’t know if there was a deeper meaning. And the last question I have is through the chair, I didn’t notice a comment in the feedback from the rapid transit folks, and they mentioned that they had the units per hectare exceeds what they had planned for that area.

So I’m just wondering if the rapid transit folks had been contacted to talk about the drainage area plan given that it’s such a significant increase over what the original proposed was for that corridor. Good stuff. Excuse me, through you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, we’ve been in discussions with that division and it’s not that we’re at maximum capacity. It’s that where this development is taking quite a bit of the capacity, but we’re looking into that. But there is no concern moving forward for this development, if that makes sense. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak a second time to the motion. I was just waiting to hear from my colleagues and I would just like to add to the importance of this application is the parking structure. I know this is a parking lot and having the parking structure built into this development, I think is very important, which leads me to a question that I have, the parking structure, will it be open to the public as well or would it be just basically to the residents?

Just curious, ‘cause I do think it adds a lot of value. I know the applicants up there, I don’t know, or staff who could answer that question. So I’ll go to staff first and if you want me to go to the applicant, I can. Thank you, through the Chair, yes.

If you could go to the applicant, please. Okay, Mr. Campbell. Thanks for the question and through your Chair.

That hasn’t been determined right now. We do believe we have perhaps an oversupply of parking given what we think is going to happen in the downtown area with rapid transit. We have a parking rate of less than one per unit. So I think we’re gonna let the market decide how the parking is actually going to work.

If there’s an opportunity to provide public parking, I’m sure I would entertain that. Councilor? Sounds really good. Yeah, and I love parking structures.

I think I’d like to see more and more, especially in the downtown area as well. So thank you. Councilor Frank. Thank you, and I just wanted to say given all my tough comments, I do really like this proposal and I do think it’s needed.

So I just wanted to say both the applicant and to staff working on it, I think this is gonna be great and it’s gonna be great for the skyline as well as for residents in the area. Any other comments, Councilor Deputy Mayor Lewis? Just a very quick question through you to our staff, Mr. Chair, and I realize that the answer is probably we don’t have the regulations yet.

But am I not correct in saying that Bill 23 also introduced some changes that impact when shadow studies are applicable and when they are not? We’ll go to staff on that. Thank you, through the Chair. I would suggest that Bill 23 got into matters related to design as opposed to shadows.

So I think that’s what you’re alluding to. I wouldn’t say that shadow studies are completely off the table based on Bill 23. Deputy Mayor? Yeah, I’m not suggesting that they’ve taken them completely off the table through you, Mr.

Chair, but only that they’re proposing and I don’t believe regulations have actually been introduced some changes in where they’re applicable. But I do see that Ms. McNeely has something to add as well. So through you, Chair.

Please go ahead, Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the Chair. So matters of health and safety.

So shadows could be wind. All these factors wouldn’t be forgotten in terms of our design. And so those are integral components of when we’re doing building and orientation and height and massing and such. Deputy Mayor, any other comments or questions?

The committee will permit me. I’d like to just offer my two cents here. This is an incredibly important development in my view. Talk about infill and the core.

I mean, this is ground zero. It’s going to add 435 units. It’s going to change the skyline. I couldn’t think of a better place for it.

It’s right on the rapid transit line. So it’s replacing a parking lot. I’m pleased because when I was on the RBC convention center board, RBC place, there was concern that the hotel might be converted to residential and that would have dramatically affected the city owned convention center business. That was during COVID and I think a lot of hotels were asking themselves the question of viability.

So what this tells me is that being that the applicant owns the hotel and they’re putting up a residential tower of this magnitude, they’re pretty confident in their hotel business, which makes me feel happy for the viability of our convention center. And I want to applaud the applicant because I agree, I think our convention business is going to be outstanding. And I think their hotel, as a dominant hotel in downtown, is going to do very well. I want to thank staff because I know you had to work with the applicant on a number of issues.

Parking, hotel parking, because this was a hotel parking lot. I appreciate coming up with solutions during the construction phase of that. And again, it’s an indication that London’s open for business. We will continue to see cranes in the sky.

I might have a different opinion than others about market rates. I think market rates are dictated by the market. That’s why they’re called market rates and supply and demand does drive it, whether when supply comes onto the market, market rates fall dramatically. Who knows?

But what I do know is currently demand outstrips supply and we’re seeing rates come about. How we address it through affordable housing initiatives, et cetera, is one question, but it will not hurt to have more units to address the demand that we’re seeing in this town. So I look forward to seeing a crane in the sky sooner rather than later. And we get going on our 47,000 unit commitment for the next 10 years.

So thank you to all involved. So we have a motion moved and seconded. So I will call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. We are now onto 3.6. It’s a comprehensive review of the London plan and remind committee, this is terms of reference only. We’re not gonna be getting into actual review of the plan at this time.

And there is staff presentation, just to kind of walk us through the reason for where we’re at right now, and maybe in what to expect in the time ahead as we go through this process. All of those staff. Through the chair, before we start on the actual report, that’s before you, I just wanna give you a little bit of background because there’s been some changes we live in very exciting times. So we have some changes that are coming on and I just wanted to let you know about.

So the comprehensive review process that we’re discussing tonight, that process is defined in Ontario’s provincial policy statement. The statement that exists right now. On Thursday of last week, the province posted on the environmental registry of Ontario, a proposal for a new revised provincial policy statement. We’ve reviewed that just in a very cursory way from over the weekend.

And just wanted to let you know that the new provincial policy statement does not include the language anymore of a comprehensive review. So that’s been removed. We still think it’s appropriate to go ahead with the meeting tonight and the process that we’re working on. For a couple of reasons.

One is that the legislation has not yet changed. So we should probably continue to do things as we had planned. And we are very conscious that the work that’s going to be done, and is being suggested by this terms of reference, needs to be completed anyway. So it drives and supports a lot of other work that’s done at the city.

So it’s beneficial and I think it’s still very reasonable and appropriate to discuss that tonight. And any work that we do between now and when the new policy comes forward, is going to be of value. So we’re very comfortable with that and confident with it. So with that, I’m going to pass it on to Mr.

McBeth and he’s going to just go through the terms of reference as they currently stand. Thank you, through the chair. So further to Mr. May, there’s comments.

There is a short presentation that was added to the agenda. Much of it was also based on the past PPS and legislation. So I won’t go through all of it, but just at a high level slide too, does note that section 26 of the Planning Act does state that it’s mandatory for municipalities to periodically review their official plans. And so an official plan review does include that comprehensive review.

It enables the city to undertake that, but it’s really a land need assessment. So there’s the element of consistency and conformity with provincial policies in the PPS, but there’s also the ability to evaluate how your city is growing. So the final results would still be consistent with the PPS, whatever it may be, but there’s those two different mechanisms that are still in the Planning Act. Given, of course, that this was really less Thursday, we’re still looking at the impacts of what these changes might be, slide five in that presentation.

The rationale for doing this review still remains valid. So the London Plan was approved by the Ministry in 2016. It was based on the land need study in 2012, since then we have seen significant population changes and changes in the economy and housing, and that is expected to continue. So the focus is intended to be on that land need assessment and then policies that are related to the land need assessment.

Some of those policy factors may change, but it’s really about the capacity of your lands to support the growth you were projected to see over the life of the plan for housing and for employment in different land uses. If you look to slide six, that in general term shows the process. Many of the steps are expected to remain unchanged, even under a new policy regime. This is also work that would align with things like the housing supply initiatives and the municipal housing target.

So those actions as part of the project are intended to include things like evaluations for potential intensification. So the capacity of the current lands to accommodate growth within the current built areas of the city. A municipal servicing review, so providing a baseline and then the magnitude of investments that are needed to accommodate that intensification and that growth within the built area and in green fields. A review of industrial place types for potential evaluations and re-designations of some employment areas to other uses, if they are not required in the long-term for industrial lands.

An update to the city’s vacant land inventory to align it with the permissions and land use designations of the London plan. The current vacant land inventory of the city uses is from the 1989 official plan. Again, as was mentioned earlier this evening because the last phase of hearings of the London plan was last year. So an update to the vacant land inventory.

And then of course, if required an evaluation of the urban growth boundary and a potential expansion. So slide 10 there, identify some preliminary criteria for any lands that may be evaluated for a potential addition to the urban growth boundary. Those are considerations like logical extension of urban areas, servicing, prime agricultural area, impact mitigation, conservation of the agricultural areas, natural heritage conservation and market demands. And then slide 11 notes that the anticipated timing of the review as it stands now is this year 2023 is to focus on the land needs assessment, that land budgeting.

And then 2024 would be a review of the alternative directions for growth which is that urban growth boundary discussion. Again, depending on the final results of that PPS update, there may be further evaluation and there may be some impacts to anticipated timing, but staff is recommending that we proceed on this basis. Thank you. Thank you.

So at this time, I’d like to open the PPM. So if I can get a motion, thank you, Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Frank and we’ll vote on that. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you.

At this time, we will look for anyone that would like to address the committee. Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, committee members for indulging me again on this very important item for us as an industry. I’m gonna be fairly high level tonight on what I have to say as was indicated by staff. I actually was away all last week, didn’t get back to last night at three o’clock.

So I haven’t actually looked much other than read it through once quickly of what the proposed changes are. I think we have till June 5th to make comments. So just as Bill 23 made changes and then went through the process and some of the proposed changes didn’t make it actually into the legislation, that could happen here too, based on the input that they get. So my focus tonight is on what’s in front of you in terms of the comprehensive study that’s a review that’s required currently in the PPS.

As an industry, we’re okay with the timeframe that was set out and the terms of reference that are here in this document. It, we believe that this review needs to happen now as soon as possible. And this is part of that process to make that happen. Just a reminder that I’ve been reminded every day by my members that I changed in anything.

If you were to assume an urban growth boundary change, it’s at least a decade before a building permit is pulled on any new piece of land that’s put into an urban growth boundary, at least a decade, and that’s if they own the land currently. So we need to move, if we’re going to get to our 47,000 new units, whether that’s through intensification or that’s through additional land opportunities within the urban going boundary, in the city boundary. I would say in the report, there’s a very good couple of paragraphs on the recent growth that has happened in this community over the last number of years. And it was indicated by staff’s presentation, like basically we’re working off of 2013 numbers.

We’re well past that and London has changed in that timeframe. And that’s certainly indicated on the growth pattern that has happened here over the last number of years. We are fully in favor and engaged on the land needs assessment process. From our side, we wanna make sure that the process is based on what currently actually happens and not in what the density might be in theory, but what actually has been delivered in London over the last number of years, what actually gets built on a acre hector of land in this community, whether that’s an infill project or in Greenfield.

And that also applies to servicing. I can recall being at this at a meeting here, not speaking to it, but maybe it’s last year, year and a half ago of a fairly significant intensification project across from Fanshawe. And one of the reasons it did not get approved because there was not enough capacity in the ground for to be able to handle the building. So just because there’s pipes in the ground now, it doesn’t mean it can handle intensification.

And that needs to be reviewed. So we have a really good solid understanding of what is actually possible. And that this process will hopefully through this when it needs assessment and the servicing assessment review will make that happen. Look at it.

My last comment is this. I think I believe our industry working with staff, working with council can come up with a London solution to our growth needs over the next little while through this comprehensive study. I think we need to keep in mind that we need to work together to make this happen or somebody at Queens Park, which has happened in three different locations within this province will make the decision for us and draw the line on the map where there have been growth boundaries. I don’t want that to happen.

Our industry here doesn’t want that to happen. We wanted to make it a London solution. And I think staff have put together a program for this review that is comprehensive and consultative with our industry and with the public to be able to make that happen. So those are our comments for the record for tonight.

Thank you very much. Thank you, go to the next speaker. The gentleman on the same mic, please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Jared Zafeman, CEO of the London Home Builders Association. I want to thank both staff and council members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to this. It’s really Mr.

Wallace. I think shared a number of items that we would certainly agree with. The one item which I did want to highlight, it’s been highlighted in the terms of reference that the growth projections have been accomplished at this point and that was done at the end of 2022. I do want council and members of this committee, I think to be fully aware, and I think we are both of the significant increases in immigration to this country and obviously more and more people coming to London.

Some of those numbers did not come out until earlier this year, so it would have been after the growth projections had been established. Even something like the new VW factory locating into St. Thomas is going to have a significant impact on our community. And so one thing that I would suggest to committee and for council to look at and for staff is potentially revisiting the growth projections that are going to be the basis for this comprehensive review.

That’s something we have to get absolutely right and I would say from an industry perspective right now, we’ve certainly shared this before where we felt that the projections and the growth projections were low and certainly need to be elevated to the higher state target, which was presented in the previous report to council. So that’s one major item, which I think will be very critical for council to be dealing with in the next little while. And this is really critical because this is going to be the major input for the rest of this process. When we get to the land needs assessment, council is going to have a number of potential issues in front of them, whether that is an expansion to the urban growth boundary, potentially and certainly something industry would support, which is amendments to the London plan to allow for greater densities across the municipality more than what currently allows.

Currently within the London plan, you’re restricted as to far as what types of density and where you can build and what heights you can build. Even with some of the recent changes from the province coming out as far as looking for increased densities, there can certainly be other opportunities, even through amendments to the London plan that could allow for this. So potentially a greater amounts of intensification across the city as well. And potentially if that is not up to snuff to meet our housing target, looking as well at the land needs broadly and what that’s going to do for the urban growth boundary.

So those are two items that I think are really critical for council to be considering. The other piece as well, and this is just maybe through the chair as a question. Right now, the terms of reference look at the land needs assessment, the employment review, alternative directions and London plan amendments all coming in Q2 2024. So just wanna make sure that that is a sufficient time and that maybe there’s a bit more of an opportunity in between those periods to make sure we’re actually landing.

Or if those timelines are just not correct, I just wanna make sure we have that in the right spot. Thank you. Thank you. Other, please, sir, gentlemen, the right.

Please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name’s Richard Zolinka.

I’m the Chair of the London Area Planning Consultants or LAPSE for short. LAPSE is an association of professional planners working in the private sector for land use planning as consultants or employees, helping to achieve well planned, healthy, complete and sustainable communities. We come together on a regular basis to discuss matters of public policy and implementation relating to the development and conservation of the physical environment. We’re often called upon by the city or seek on our own volition to comment and provide advice to help create sound policies and workable procedures in the public interest.

And we work well and collegially with the city’s professional staff. Our organization met 12 days ago to provide some initial commentary relating to the London Plan comprehensive review in terms of reference. We have as a group more experienced than any other stakeholder group, probably in the regular use of the London Plan. I would like to present to the planning committee just a few of the key matters that we feel should be examined as part of the official plan review process and be included in the terms of reference.

And I should just make clear that this is not on behalf of any clients, but is based on our own professional experience working with the London Plan. The first matter that I’d like to raise has to do with a recommendation that is within the staff report today on the terms of reference that a goal of the comprehensive review be to ensure that the vision goals, key directions and organizing structure of the London Plan be maintained. We are asking that the planning committee and council include a review of these fundamental elements. The staff report and presentation has correctly pointed out a number of major changes that have occurred to these various elements which were studied back in 2012 and incorporated into policy, forming a basis for the plans policies.

Some of council’s current key priorities, however, such as housing supply and affordability are not captured by the 10 year old policies of the plan. So for example, the only mention of affordability in the plan’s key directions comes as a means to attract a diverse population to support London as a culturally rich, creative and diverse city. Otherwise affordability is not a key direction for the London Plan. And that’s just an example, but one that I believe, and as a group of professional planners, we believe signifies the importance to actually review some of those key directions within the vision of the London Plan.

I’d also like to mention a number of sample policy areas that deserve review. These were matters that came up from our membership. The existing restrictions on building typologies, such as stack townhouses and foreplexes, which limit the ability to provide lower cost housing in our neighborhoods, building heritage policies, which require a neighbor to study the heritage significance of non-designated inventoryed properties, which we believe is contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act, let alone the changes being made by the province. Limitations on residential development, height and intensities on transit routes away from the planned BRT routes is another key area that should be looked at.

There is a need to examine other locations for transit supportive high density residential outside of these BRT corridors. 30 seconds. Thank you. We hope to provide staff during the course of the review process with additional commentary on certain policies through that.

And we will seek to engage with staff on an ongoing basis during the policy review. I will provide written comments to the Secretary of the Committee after this meeting. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other people that would like to speak to this? Gentlemen, the top right, please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Crispin Colvin. I’m a Vice President with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I’m quite concerned with the comments about expanding the boundaries of the city of London. I was on council in Western Missouri in 1993 when London annexed a lot of the perhaps surrounding areas including Westminster Township.

That land was supposed to last well into the 21st century and already London is looking at taking more land from the county. We lose 319 acres a day to urban and non-agricultural development. It can be development, it can be any non-agricultural, non-food producing use. 319 acres a day.

We cannot sustain that if we wish to feed our country and our population. I’m asking London to take a leadership role and say we’ll live within our boundaries and we’ll go up, we’ll go beyond 33 stories. We will change that regulation. There’s no reason to have a limit.

Intensification, some of the people have talked about it and I was pleased to hear that because that’s what we need to do. We can’t continue to lose 319 acres of land a day. On class one, two and three land, the best land in the country, 52% of the land in Ontario is the best land in Canada. Producers over 200 different crops and foodstuffs for the people of Canada and the world.

And yet we continue to want to pave it over. I urge you to please reconsider your thoughts about expanding your urban boundary. We need to live within our means and we can do that if we want to plan beyond a short term and that’s one of the problems we have in planning. We don’t look at what the province or the city will look like in 100 or 150 years.

We look at it in terms of 25 and 30 years. We need to look beyond that. I urge you to stay within your boundaries. Think of the fact that we lose 319 acres of farmland a day and wonder where the food is going to come from that feeds your family and your children and your grandchildren and your great grandchildren.

Because at some point in time, we won’t be able to do that. The United Kingdom has already got a problem where they cannot feed themselves. They rely on imported food. Don’t let that happen to Canada.

A 2014 study showed that there were only eight countries in the world, a few smaller ones as well, but eight major economies that feed the entire world. Canada is one of those countries and Ontario leads the way with $47 billion of GDP in agricultural products for the province of Ontario. $20 billion of that is exported. So we are a big hitter in terms of agriculture and London’s done well with agricultural businesses, whether it’s Bonduel, Maple Leaf, the factories and the agribusinesses you’ve attracted are great.

And they come here because they know that Southern Ontario produces some of the best crops and the best livestock in the world. That’s why they’re here. Don’t lose sight of that when you talk about expanding your boundaries, because when you do expand your boundaries, you lose more than you gain. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the gallery? I don’t see anyone else wishing to speak. I’ll ask a clerk if there is anyone online or in the other rooms, okay.

Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion from the committee to close a PPM. Councillor Hopkins, I have a seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I don’t call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So before I turn it to many, I’ll just remind committee members, we’re talking about terms of reference here. We’re not going to get into debate about urban growth boundaries, et cetera. Strictly terms of reference. There’ll be time for those discussions.

So with that, I’ll open the floor to comments or questions or motions. Councillor Frank. Thank you, and through you to staff, I did have one question about some of the scoping. So I do notice that they are reviewing land needs assessment and looking at intensification as a possible solution.

I am wondering if through that intensification, if there will be an examination into how those targets will be developed. So for example, we did hear from the gallery looking at trying to make triplexes and four plexes as of right in neighborhoods where they’re not already. So I’m wondering if those kinds of policies will be examined through this, or if that’s kind of after this is all done, then we look at how we meet those intensification targets. I’ll go to staff through the chair.

That’s a great question. And definitely as we look at intensification, we’ll have to consider how that’s achieved. So our proposal is to bring forward a report outlining options regarding intensification. And then depending on what the direction is, there will be have to be some consideration of what the implications in terms of policy.

So at present, the intensification target in the London plan is 45%. And it’s our opinion that the policies are set up well to achieve that target. If there’s a significant shift in that target, I think certainly looking at the level of intensity permitted throughout the plan, including key nodes such as downtown and transit villages, but also throughout neighborhoods would have to be considered as well. Councilor.

Thank you. I appreciate that information. I was also wondering, I noticed on one of the pages that the climate lens was going to be used as a process. And I’m just wondering how staff and vision using the climate screening tool or the climate lens when they’re developing the comprehensive review stuff.

Through the chair, so as a starting point, in reviewing these only lands designated for urban uses are to be evaluated. So in any of the calculations of land available, the natural heritage features that are known are netted out. And then when we get to that final result of, do we have a sufficient land or not? And we’re looking at that discussion of, do we expand the boundary?

Do we intensify? Do we add additional permitted uses? Or is it a combination of the two? Then the discussion is what would the impacts be on unknown natural heritage features and transportation modes and other things?

Councilor. Thank you, I appreciate that. I think those are all the ones I have for now if we’re not going to wait into our other discussions at this point. The other committee members are visiting counselors.

Oh, I’m sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis, my apologies. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, I’m going to move the staff recommendation first, and then I have some comments to share. We’ll go for a seconder first.

I’ll look for a seconder. Councilor Hopkins, and please go ahead. Thank you, so first of all, I know a tremendous amount of work has gone into this. I also know that Ms.

McNeely in particular has been very patient with a number of my emails back and forth asking questions, a roundable number of issues. And so I appreciate the time that’s been spent listening to some of my concerns around how we review the London plan. I will say, I know we’re not getting into discussion today, and I appreciate you pointing that out, Chair, because I think beyond the terms of reference, there are a number of other factors that have to be considered as well. We have new floodplain mapping from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, not yet peer reviewed, but nonetheless new mapping that needs to be taken into consideration in terms of land that may need to come out of the built area boundary, or the urban growth boundary, because we’re not going to be able to develop on it.

We also, and I respect Mr. Colvin, in fact, we found some common cause championing some changes to the previous provincial government’s high speed rail plan and the damage that that would do to some rural communities the way it was originally laid out. But I think we also, as we move forward through this discussion, are going to have to factor in in our thought process, ex-urban growth. It’s a huge challenge, and one has to look no further than Kamoka or Kilworth, in fact, a couple of counselors may have joked with me earlier today about setting up a toll bridge out there so that we’re charging access, and it was all in fun, but it’s serious, and it’s happening on the east side of the city too, in Thorndale and in Dorchester, where agricultural land is being paved over for city residents to live in the county and not contribute to the property tax base or the infrastructure base or anything here, but to commute in and out and actually increase our GHG footprint because of longer commute times.

So no decisions are being made today on changing the urban growth boundary, changing the built area boundary, what might come in, what might come out. Certainly no one is talking about annexation from the county at this point, but there are a whole lot of factors that we need to consider moving forward. These terms of reference I think really lay out a good road map to start a really solid discussion with community stakeholders, it’s going to take time, but I don’t think we should presuppose any outcome at this point. I think we have to be open to all outcomes, whether that is no change, some change, things in, things out, changes to the plan itself, changes to density targets in existing residential areas, all the cards have to be on the table for us to consider before we start to chart a path forward.

And I think that the terms of reference staff have laid out for us here will really flip some of those cards over so that we can see what cards we’re holding and then start building a winning hand from there. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And just wanna thank staff. And I wanna thank everyone for coming out. I really do appreciate hearing all comments and really looking forward to having that engagement with the stakeholders and how we go forward with the review. I’m really glad to hear that we can go forward with the comprehensive review.

I think given the Provincial Policy Statement of Review, I know a lot of municipalities are all wondering and how do we go forward? But I’m really pleased that we are going forward. We need to go forward and hopefully we can come up with a solution that’s made in London to me. That is the London plan and how we can continue.

I think there is agreement no matter where you stand on what side of the fence. We all do support that inward and upward development. It’s really important. I’m not gonna ask any questions here tonight.

I just want to, I’m just really looking forward to the ongoing conversations that we need to have in London as we change as a city. Those things are really important, but also being a creature of the province and how we’re gonna be able to pivot is going to be extremely important. And I do see staff being aware of all this and being on top of everything. And I understand the development community being involved and being part of that process and how we can work together.

The agricultural community, I do represent Ward 9, which is urban and rural. In fact, it’s where it all clashes and very sensitive to how we do protect our agricultural land and just have confidence that we’re gonna be able to no matter what and where we go and what decisions will be made that we will be able to go through the process. Not only this process, but it really does inform all the other policies that we rely on here, especially at committee. So thank you against staff and for everyone for coming out.

Thank you, Councillor. Other comments or questions? Councillor Frank. Thank you.

And I just wanna add, Councillor Hopkins reminded me of one thing I want to add. And I really also do appreciate the community coming out and especially folks from the rural community ‘cause we don’t often get to hear from you. And I really appreciate the comments made from Mr. Colvin.

And I’m really hoping that, and I’m not sure what your advocacy efforts are, but I’m hoping that you and other farmers across Ontario are communicating similarly to the provincial conservative government. ‘Cause as we’ve seen, they are forcing sprawls on some municipalities. So I think doing our best to work with what our staff are recommending for building inwards and upwards. But I do think that we need to hear from other communities, not just municipalities that forcing that kind of process on municipalities that don’t want to sprawl.

Hearing from farmers will be, I think, really powerful. So appreciate you coming out to tell us that. I’ve heard it, I think other Councillors have, but I think that same message may be great if it was carried over to Toronto as well. So thanks for coming.

Any other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? The committee would permit me just to touch on what Deputy Mayor mentioned. Last week, Councillor Hopkins and I were involved in the first step on an EA of the expansion of widening of the Oxford Street West Bridge. The need for that is because the incredible growth that we’re seeing, and especially in Councillor Hopkins award, but also in our surrounding communities.

Kilworth and Kamoka, Deputy Mayor mentioned it’s in the east end, it’s north and south. And again, with the Deputy Mayor touched on, and this is, I think, a concern that’s shared, I look at this as being an example. This bridge is getting millions and millions of dollars. It will fall in the taxpayers of London.

How it’s gonna be funded has yet to be seen, but it will certainly be involved with DC charges and property tax, hopefully somehow from the province we’ll see. But what we’re faced with is handling growth in the surrounding communities, growth where London receives zero dollars, but yet we’re faced with the implications of that handling the traffic that’s coming in, using our infrastructure, our amenities, and where we do not get compensating revenue for them to provide those. So I’m sure that is a little factoring, but I guess this is my question to staff, will you look at growth in the surrounding communities? I know you’re looking at growth in London, but will you be looking at growth in the communities that are surrounding us that when I drive in those communities, I see new neighborhoods spring up continually through the chair.

So each municipality is required to do their own study like this. The growth projections that were passed in December did identify a proportionate share of regional growth that we were expecting of the CMA. Traditionally, that’s been about 84%. They are projecting that that’s to continue, so of London’s CMA, about 84% is to stay in the city.

But every community does their own growth projections and every community does their own comprehensive reviews and evaluations of their lands. There are statements in the PPS that it is to be coordinated across jurisdictions, but we all are supposed to do our own. Okay, thank you. And so we will obviously stay within those parameters, but I just wanna let you know my thoughts and I think other Councillors share that concern and that will be part of the discussion when we look at such things as urban growth boundaries, for sure.

So that’s, I just want to highlight that. There are no other concerns or questions, comments from committee members or visiting Councillors. We’ve got a motion moved and seconded, so I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

Thank you, I see no items for direction or deferred matters or additional business. So we have two items to go into King camera for, so I will ask the clerk to prepare the room for that. Do I need a vote to go in camera for it? Before we do that, I’ll look to the committee to a motion to go in camera.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call that vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, we are back in session.

I will ask the Deputy Mayor to report out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to report that after going in camera for two confidential items, as listed on the public agenda, these were with regard to London Plan and Ontario Land Tribunal Appeals, progress was made on both items.

Thank you, I look for a motion to close the meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor, he’s in. Okay, so hand vote on that one. Good, thank you, thanks to staff, I appreciate it.

Thanks, folks.