May 1, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 to 2.3, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-04-12 - CACP Report 5

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on April 12, 2023:

 

a)    the Community Advisory Committee on Planning membership renewal with Community Heritage Ontario for 2023 BE APPROVED;

 

b)    the Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to refer the matter of the Heritage Alteration Permit Application by R. Bryson for the property located at 27 Bruce Street, Wortley Village - Old South Heritage Conservation District back to the Civic Administration to allow for continued work with the applicant; and,

 

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   5th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-04-20 ECAC Report 5

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 20, 2023:

 

a)    K. Moser and S. Hall BE APPOINTED as Representative and Alternate to the Trails Advisory Group;

 

b)    the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 735 Southdale Road West BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

 

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.2 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated May 1, 2023 entitled “Annual Report on Building Permit Fees”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   2060 Jetstream (Z-9592)

2023-05-01 Staff Report - 2060 Jetstream Road (Z-9592)

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 application by The Corporation of the City of London, relating to the property located at 2060 Jetstream Road:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_1 of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, the subject lands, 2060 Jetstream Road, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Heavy Industrial Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 16, 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 (LI2) Zone TO a Heavy Industrial Special Provision (HI1(_)) Zone;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Heavy Industrial Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would align the zoning of the property to that of the westerly adjacent lot (roll number 030330077040000), simplifying the future development of the sites together as one.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   595 Proudfoot Lane (Z-9591)

2023-05-01 Staff Report - 595 Proudfoot Lane (Z-9591)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Old Oak Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 595 Proudfoot Lane, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 1, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 16, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R9/Convenience Commercial (R9-7H42/CC4) Zone TO a Residential R9/Convenience Commercial/Day Care Special Provision (R9-7H42/CC4/DC(_)) Zone;

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

  •    B. McCauley, Old Oak Properties;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force polices of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a new use that is appropriate within the surrounding context; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would provide access to a day care centre in a convenient and  accessible location to meet the daily needs of neighbourhood residents.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   3480 Morgan Avenue (Z-9531)

2023-05-01 Staff Report - 3480 Morgan Avenue (Z-9531)

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 application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 3480 Morgan Avenue:

 

a)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-63h-82h-95h-100h-105h-135CSA5(3)) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision R8-4(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reason:

 

i)    the Application did not include Holding Provisions, a number of holding provisions are considered necessary to address a range of planning and servicing issues associated with the proposed development;

 

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 16, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-63h-82h-95h-100h-105h-135CSA5(3)) Zone TO an Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (hh-95h-100h-105h-198*R8-4(_)*H14) Zone, for the following reasons:

 

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

ii)    the recommended zoning conforms to the in-force policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including, but not limited to, the Shopping Area Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 policies; and,

iii)    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

 

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

 

  •    L. Clark, Sifton Properties Limited.     (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   Delegation of Authority - Subdivisions and Condominiums, and Official Plan Amendment Policies for Public Meetings (O-9606)

2023-05-01 Staff Report - (3.4) Delegation of Authority - Subdivisions and Condominiums (O-9606)

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 regarding Delegation of Authority – Subdivisions and Condominiums:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 16, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to change the requirement for public meetings for vacant land condominiums and common elements condominiums under policy 1619 and to remove policy 1683 in its entirety; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 1, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 16, 2023 to amend By-law CP-17 being the Subdivision & Condominium Delegation & Approval By-law to include delegated approvals for minor revisions to the draft plan of subdivision, extensions to the draft plan of subdivision, subdivision agreements with special provisions, and change the requirement for public meetings for vacant land condominiums and common elements condominiums;

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:

  •    streamline development approvals to allow the Civic Administration to get permit ready lots to market quicker;

  •    delegations are also administrative in nature and will allow the Municipal Council to focus on more strategic priorities;

  •    the delegations of draft plan extensions, minor red line revisions, subdivision agreement with special provisions will create time savings of 30 days; and,

  •    the delegations to adjust public meeting requirements for vacant land condominiums and common elements condominiums will create time savings of 45 to 60 days.   (2023-D07/D12)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

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)

3.5   614 Westmount Crescent (Z-9553)

2023-05-01 Staff Report - 614 Westmount Crescent (Z-9553)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by LA-Rosa Community Ltd., relating to the property located at 614 Westmount Crescent, the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider adding clauses relating to the access alignment across from 608 Commissioners Road West (clause a) ii)), enhanced privacy screening (clause a) xiii)), and the installation of a sidewalk on Westmount Crescent (clause a) xiv));

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

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

ii)    consider locating the access to align with the proposed access at 608 Commissioners Road West; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ix)    consider offsetting any tree removals with plantings;

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

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

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

xiii)    include enhanced privacy aspects such as 7 foot high fences and more evergreen trees or cedar hedges; and,

xiv)    the installation of a sidewalk along Westmount Crescent;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC; and,

  •    R. Marghella.    (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to go in camera at 453

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.1   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

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

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) arising out of a Committee of Adjustment decision as it relates to 1 Westcott Street, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

The Planning and Environment Committee convened, in Closed Session, from 4:53 PM to 5:32 PM.

6.2   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:34 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 0 minutes)

Ladies and gentlemen, just past four o’clock, so I will call the eighth meeting of Planning Environment Committee to order. Before I do, the chair will recognize the Maple Buds shirt on the deputy mayor, and I know we’re feeling sadness, the fact that the Leafs won’t really get a test, this playoff series as my beloved Bruins had a taste of reality. So with that, the city of London is situated under the traditional lands of Anishinaabic, Odin Noshane, Lene Peiwok, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history and languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The city of London is currently home to many first nations, Métis and Inuit 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. At this time, oh, I apologize. 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 pack PC at London.ca or 519-66-124-89 extension 2425. At this time, I will look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move to the consent items. I haven’t heard any requests to pull any of these.

Would anyone like to have any of these items pulled? If not, I look for someone to move the consent items. And Councillor Hill, you’re in second. Councillor Lewis, and I will put that on the floor for comments or questions.

Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do have a question on the 2.3 annual report on building permit fees.

So as we can see, there is a negative balance on that report. And I just want to go through you to staff, just to give us a rundown, and where we’re going to sort of look at kind of creating a zero balance as to fees paying for permits. Just want to have a better understanding of how we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you to Councillor Hopkins. As the report shows, our revenues, we’re not quite at the level where our costs were.

So to offset our costs, and that’s what the Building Code Act has as a provision, is that each building division has revenues in place to offset the costs. And the revenues are primarily generated at the building division through building permit fees. So as the report states, we will be reviewing the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund this year. And in addition to that, also, we’ll be reviewing our permit fee structure to see if there’s a warrant to need to increase the fees to generate additional revenue.

The portion here on the costs in 2022, our costs were higher than last year. We’ve had a lot of emphasis on training for new staff. We have new staff that has been hired. We hired 11 new staff in 2022 that we require significant training.

And also, we’ve implemented senior positions in 2022 that also contributed to the increase in staff salaries. So going forward, as I said, we will be reviewing the Reserve Fund that is anticipated to be at 100% of our costs. Currently, as you can see, it’s not quite there yet. And in our discussions with industry, that is something that will take some time to achieve.

It can’t be done in the short term, because otherwise, that would involve a significant permit fee increase. And one thing I wanted to say, too, is that the permit fee indexing that takes place every year in March, on average, is around the 5% to 6% mark. So that really doesn’t help us in realizing additional revenues. We have to go based on the Statistics Canada consumer price index, which, again, warrants right now are for the review on the Reserve Fund and also on the permit fee structure as well, Councillor.

Yeah, thank you for that. And I would assume this report comes to us on an annual basis. And we’ll probably be with the review. Will that report be done for the next review?

Or are we just going to anticipate doing the report? I think it’s really important. I think we’ve been here before as well. Just trying to remember some of the past years.

And also with the report and reviewing our fees, are we restricted in any way of increasing fees? I know there have been many changes by the provincial government when it comes to fees. But if you could just sort of give us a better understanding on where we can go. Thank you.

Mr. Carse. Thank you. And through you, Mr.

Chair, I’m not aware of any upper limit in terms of the fee structure. As I mentioned earlier, the fees have to generate revenue to cover costs. And again, also looking into the part about having 100% of our costs in the Reserve. And to your question, Councillor Hopkins, on reporting back, we certainly will be reporting back.

I estimate before next year at this time when we have to come back with the annual report, because an increase in firm reviews will involve amending the building by-law. Councillor. Really appreciate the extra information. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? If the committee would permit me, I just have a couple of questions. Would any technology that the building department use be covered off by this fund? Or is that covered off by the city’s tech group?

So through you, Mr. Chair, for your own question, any technological improvements or anything involved in processing of building permits would be attributed to building permit costs to administer and enforce the Ontario Building Code. So if new technology or software was being considered to enhance handling building permits in a more efficient manner, that would be something the building division can look on on its own without going through the corporate tech team. What I mean by that is funding-wise.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, through you, I can give you an example of software that we purchased several years ago for our building inspectors to allow for inspections and keeping track of their results. And again, all that was funded through building permit fees.

There was no weight on the levy, if you will, or implication. All right, thank you. That’s all the questions I have. There are no other questions.

We’ve got the consent items moved in second, so I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. Moving on to schedule items 3.1.

This is regarding 2060 jet stream. And this is an industrial rezoning look. So I will look for a mover to open the PPM, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hill here, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the vote carries 5 to 0.

We have staffs reported in front of us if there’s any questions of the technical nature. I’ll look to committee members at this point. OK, I’ll move on. Would the applicant be here, clerk, to address the committee?

Through the chair, I don’t have anyone on Zoom. OK, at this point, I’ll look for anyone from the public that would like to comment or address the committee. I see no one in the gallery. I’ll ask the clerk a third of anyone online.

Through the chair, there’s no one online. Right, seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hill here, seconded by Councillor Lewis, or Deputy Mayor Lewis, I know we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0.

Thank you. I’ll put this on the floor of them for committee members to discuss or move Mr. Hopkins. Yeah, I’m happy to move the motion.

And I assume we’re just creating one consistent zone in the area, so happy to move the motion. Seconder by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any further conversation? Seeing none, then I’ll call the vote.

And carries 5 to 0. We’ll move on to 3.2, which is a 595 profit lane. Looks like there is a rezoning request here to provide a daycare. So I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Haye, or all the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Questions for technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant— the applicant is here, and would like to address the committee?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. This is Ben McCauley from Old Oak Properties. We have no further comments on the application.

We’re in agreement with the staff’s recommendation, but I’m here to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

Anyone from the public would like to address the committee? There is anyone online? Through you, Mr. Chair, there’s no one online.

OK, thank you. OK, seeing that no one from the public, which is to address us, then we’ll look for a motion to close PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by, seconded. Councillor Hillier, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you, and I’ll put this item on the floor, then, for committee members. Anyone wish to move this? Councillor Frank.

I’ll move the staff’s recommendation. I have a seconder, Councillor Hillier. Any further discussion, conversation? This apartment is near and dear to my heart, as I lived here when I first moved to London, so it’s nice to see it come before us.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for making those comments, as I was waiting for something from the— I think it’s pretty close to you, or it’s in your ward as— No, actually, it’s just on the other side of Wonderland, so— Oh, OK, I do want to just make a comment. I really like the idea of this adaptive use in this facility.

It is taking advantage of existing uses. There’s outdoor opportunities for this daycare center. I think as we look at re-adaptive uses to buildings that are already in existence, to me it’s a good news story, so happy to support it. Great, any other comments before I call the vote?

Seeing none, then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries. 5 to 0.

OK, thank you. And move on to 3.3, which is 3480 Morgan Ave. And I’ll just ask staff to give a brief overview when you first read it. It says refuse, but then I think the intent is a little softer than that, and that intent is to see this through, but with some holding provisions that represent staff concerns.

So I’ll just ask staff to briefly comment on that. Through you, Chair. You’re correct. The recommendation, as I’ve written, can be confusing, but what happened was the applicant had asked for a specific zone, which excluded some holding provisions.

And as through the review, there were a number of holding provisions that were identified. So if you look at the recommendation, we’ll have initial refusal from what the applicant had asked for. And then there’ll be a part two, which will recommend the exact same zone, but applies several holding provisions to the front. My understanding is the applicant is aware of that, and they understand the intent of it.

OK, thank you. Any technical questions for staff at this point? Councillor Hopkins? Yes, I just want to confirm the parking.

I read the report, and I just wanted to make sure I understood how many parking spaces were going into this development. Mr. Page? Sorry, wrong button.

I’m just looking through quickly right now for the actual number, but there is a reduction that’s being asked for on that location. So if you’re after, if you want to continue, I’ll come back with the exact number, Councillor. Yeah, I was quickly reading the recommendation and read that we are having 190 parking spaces. And there’s 144 units.

I know it was reduced from down to 0.5 parking spots. But just reading the report, I wasn’t quite clear. So when staff has a moment just to make sure I understand what we’re recommending here. So Mr.

Page, maybe we can find that information out later on after we’ve finished maybe the PPM, we can confirm that for the Councillor. Sure. OK, great. Any other questions for technical nature, Councillor?

Deputy Mayor Lewis? Thank you, Chair, and through you. Just a very brief question to staff. And if I missed this in the report, my apologies.

The holding provisions being recommended, are those holding provisions that you will be able to remove administratively through delegated authority, or do they have to come back to the planning committee in the future to remove those? I’ll go to staff on that. Through you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, those holding provisions will be removed administratively, and they don’t have to come back through planning committee. What typically happens with that through the administrative process is while they’re going through site plan and finishing off their development agreement, we’re able to run the holding provisions, send them out for circulation, do our analysis, and have it completed so there’s no slowdown in building permit time. OK, thank you. Deputy Mayor, any other questions?

Councillor Pratt. Thank you, yes, one question. I noticed the ecology section had a bunch of recommendations, but that they mentioned that none of the comments would impact the ZBA, but that they would like them to be addressed by final approval. So I just wanted to confirm, is that happening at site plan approval?

Mr. Page? If there are, I don’t recall, there being any specific ecology comments for this portion of the development, there is portions to the north of the northeast that’s going to come through later to a plan of subdivision, but if there are any, there will be addressed through the site plan process. Councillor?

Thank you. OK, I’ll move on to the applicant’s present. I would like to address the committee. Please state your name, and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, committee, chair, and members. I apologize. I move in too fast once again. We have to open the PPM.

If you could hold off on a procedural here, I think the chair would learn this by now, but unfortunately not. Still shook up by the Bruins losing. So I’ll look for motion. Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Hill here.

I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Now, please go ahead and give us your name, and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, committee, chair, members, and staff.

I’m Lindsey Clark with Symptom Properties Limited. I’d just like to thank staff for bringing this report forward. And agree with their recommendation to include holding provisions as part of the zoning approval. I am also available for any questions, and that is all.

Thank you. Thank you. Any people from the public that would like to address the committee now is the time. Is there anyone online, Clerk?

Through you, chair, there’s no one online. OK. Seeing no one, then I will look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hill here, and else Councillor Frank, call the vote.

Those in the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. And then I’ll put this on the floor for committee discussion. Those are op-eds.

Thank you. If I can go through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, just to get a good handle on the parking, I know there were some changes made. I just want to confirm them.

Mr. Page, here is the chair. The original application came in. I believe it was about 216 units, or 216 parking spots.

They’ve reduced that. And the parking rate right now, as you did mentioned, is 0.5 parking spot. They are coming in with a little bit more. They’re coming with 171 parking spots, which is in excess of the parking rate.

And my understanding in Sifton, the applicant may be able to confirm it, but I’m assuming they’re doing it for a marketing purpose. Councillor? So it is slightly a little bit higher than the 0.5 than half, which is our policy. I just want to make sure I’m supportive of the recommendation, but I wanted to understand exactly what we’re supporting here and moving forward.

I know, if I may, I’ll just make a few comments. Happy to move the motion as well. This is an area that’s developing quite a bit. It’s a lot of commercial space.

It’s opportunities for schools in the area too. So I’m really pleased to see the intensification of this development going forward and supportive of the motion. Thank you. Oh, we’ve got a motion moved.

Is there a seconder? Deputy Mayor Lewis? Any further comments or questions? Councillor Prey?

Thank you. And since we do have the applicant here, are you OK if I ask them a question? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you for attending. I did just want to maybe reiterate my question about the ecology on the site. And if you had any comments on that, because I’m not sure if it’s on this land parcel or if it’s on one of the future parcels, but I’m just wondering if you would comment on any plans for the on site ecology. Please go ahead.

Sure. Through the chair, yes. So if there’s any recommendations through ecology, it would be incorporated into the development agreement on the site plan, which is specific to this rezoning. There is, as mentioned by Mr.

Page, there is a subdivision that we’re also advancing to the east of the site, which would be coming forward at a future date. Again, if there is ecology recommendations, that would be brought forward through draft conditions of the subdivision. Councillor? Thank you.

So I just wanted to make sure I guess, then, that those were captured, because there were some ecology comments in this application about resolving some items. So in the ecology section, it did say that they would come for final approval. And I’m just wondering, I guess I wanted to see clarification on what that final approval was, because I wasn’t for sure on that answer. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded. So I will call the vote. Opposed in the vote.

The motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. Go to 3.4, and this is regarding delegation of authority. Things are rapidly changing.

Bill 23 is having implications with planning and zoning and building, et cetera, here in the city of others. So what I’d like to do is I’d like to call on staff to kind of just give a brief overview of what they’re looking for here. We’ve read the report, but I think it’s helpful to just, again, just to kind of give a verbal update on what it is that is before us. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thanks for the opportunity. As part of this delegation, we’re looking to adjust the subdivision and condominiums delegation approval authority by-law. This is a part of our streamlined development review process, where we’re looking to get more and more lots permit ready and quicker.

So for delegations that we’re looking to bring forward that we’re recommending, our draft plan extensions, minor red-led revisions, subdivision agreements with special provisions, as well as adjusting the requirement for public meetings for condominium applications. Touching on each of those delegations a little bit in more detail. So draft plan extensions, historically, they’ve been three years, in some cases, subdivisions that are larger will have five years. Staff are completing a review for draft plan extensions specific to subdivisions to see if we can have them crafted so that they actually suit that project, rather than just applying a three-year.

With that, we’re hoping that we’ll need less extensions. And also, to that effect, if extensions continue to drag on, there’s the possibility, too, that staff could rescind that approval. It could lapse. And then the applicant that has to go for another draft plan approval, which would be in front of council.

The second amendment we’re looking to bring forward is minor red-line revisions. We didn’t want to bring forward all of the revisions, which were deeming some major and minor. I guess you can assume based on public impact. And as you can see from the table there on the report, the minor impacts, there’s less significant, a lot of adjustments, there’s no impact.

The PPS or the London Plan. The third delegation we’re looking to bring forward is subdivision agreements with special provisions. This delegation is quite administrative in nature. We’re a staff where we have a council approved engineering agreement, and we’re just adding special provisions to suit that subdivision.

We have legal review, have an in-depth review of the applicant completing this, which staff would just allow us to get it back to the applicant and be less rushed, trying to complete it within a certain pack cycle. And then finally, the adjusting public meetings for vacant land condos and common elements condos, which is one of the reasons today we have the PPM for the specific delegation. Because for this, delegation requires an official plan amendment to the London Plan. Because we are adjusting policy 1619 and 1683.

And when we were in these policies, we wanted to adjust them not only for this delegation, but also, like you mentioned, chair Bill 23. Lots of other changes that are happening. So we were in that policy. We reviewed it from that lens.

So specific to the condo. We’re adjusting the public meeting requirement so that if there’s already been a public meeting, the applicant no longer needs to have another public meeting. For instance, this would be a vacant land condo and a plan of subdivision that’s already had a public participation meeting for zoning. Whereas a condominium for an infill, the zoning might already be in that use.

So then they’d have to have their first meeting as regards to the condo. When we’re in these policies, again, we adjusted some requirements for site plan. As you recall from the last PEC meeting, we were discussing policy 1683. And based on our review, we’re totally removing that policy because 1682 covers it and gives us the ability to determine when public meetings are required.

Finally, in closing, we believe that these delegations will improve our timelines roughly 30 days to get the information to the applicant quicker, to get permit ready lots quicker. And then for the public meeting adjustment, that timeline could even be closer to 45, 60 days, just with the amount of effort that’s required to get a public notice out, as well as reach the PAC cycle. But if there’s any questions, we’d be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, this is a PPM. So I’m gonna go first to the public here, give them an opportunity to speak to this, and then come back to committee to discuss our questions. This time is ready.

So I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM, Councillor Frank, and so moves it, and Councillor Hayyer, a second, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’ll look to the public.

I see a gentleman up there that would like to address the committee. So you, sir, please state your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for welcoming me back and committee members. My name is Mike Wallace. I’m representing the London Development Institute here this evening. First of all, we appreciate staff’s communication with us and going over these changes that are being proposed tonight.

For example, the issue of an additional, that’s a great reminder that Peter had this, it’s an additional public meeting on the vacant land kind of meeting. It can take months for that to get through the process, you know, and every day counts in terms of being able to get things to market sooner and getting things approved. So we’re very, and we had approached the city a number of years ago on making this happen, as it does not happen in other communities. So London isn’t on the bleeding edge on this one and on some other, these other things.

So we are very supportive of the communication that we’ve had. We thank the staff for that. We are fully support of all the changes, including the OPA that’s being referred here. And I just want to point out that as of last council meeting, your new strap plan is approved.

And I know in the report it talks about the previous strap plan for the previous council, but for you guys, you’re under housing and homelessness, outcome number three. If you look at 3.1b, it increased the efficiency and consistency of planning and development processes and in 3.2 under A, increase the efficiency and the consistency of processes to support housing access and supply. These changes make that happen. Congratulations on your first action coming through on your new strap plan.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Walz, for pointing out how leading edge this committee is. Any other persons from the public that would like to address the committee, is there anyone online, Park?

Through you, Chair, there’s no one on Zoom. Okay, they’ll look for a mover to close the PPM, Councillor Frank, Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, I’ll open the floor now for committee members or comments or questions. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I am happy to move this.

I want to say to staff, I appreciate the work that’s gone into this. Seeing the minor and major table in the report was helpful, and it addresses a number of the concerns that I’ve heard from the industry side as well, as streamlining the process for us. So when we’re talking about those minor red line revisions and things like that, I know that those are perfectly fine in the hands of staff to take care of. I don’t need to see those come back to me.

I know that you all take pride in the work that you do on these applications. And if it saves a little bit of time and it makes our operations a little bit more efficient that you don’t come back fully supportive. So I have had, I don’t even know how many conversations in the last six to nine months with Mr. Mathers, with Ms.

McNeely, with her predecessor. And I see a lot of the things that I raised as concerns reflected in some of these changes here. So very happy to see that we’re making some progress on that and streamlining the process a little bit. This 47,000 homes is still a big number.

This is of course only one piece of really what’s probably a thousand piece puzzle picture we have to put together, but it’s an important piece no less so very supportive and thanks for the work on this. We have the motion moved, can I get a seconder? Councilor Hopkins, any other conversation? Councilor Hopkins, please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. I’d just like to make a couple of comments and I am very supportive of the recommendation. I know we need to do the streamlining, I think we all support that without a doubt. But, you know, change is a little difficult sometimes, just understanding what we can’t and can’t do.

So thank you to SAP for trying to help us. I think it’s really important, especially if we’ve been around a long time. There’s certain things that get stuck and it really does take a little while to understand how we’re moving forward. And I would think in a better way to, I want to just make a comment, Mr.

Wallace, just following up on his comments around vacant land condos. I know there is, we needed to make those changes and really glad to see that happen. But I do have a couple of questions. I know we are making, and this is through the chair, making changes on extensions to draft approval.

And we see many of these extensions and I’m always, I’m always glad to see them in a way because I have an understanding of why it’s taking so long or what is happening to those applications. And I’m supportive of giving staff the delegation to deal with these extensions. But I would like to have an idea how these extensions are reported back or if how do we as a committee get to understand the delays in a subdivision that we have proved and don’t see it coming back. So just through you, Mr.

Chair, to set up. I’ll go to staff on that. Thank you through the chair. With these types of, it’s new for us as well.

And so part of the reporting will be part of our follow through and implementation. We do have an annual development report that we can certainly build into that. We’re also under the minister’s regulations now required to report regularly in terms of applications. And it certainly can be embedded into those types of summary reports for council.

Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that. And with the reporting, is it reporting annually then from the minister through you? Ms.

Mcgally. Thank you for the question through you. Chair, it’s quarterly as well as annually. And then for the first time, it’s like a five year time frame that we have to report on.

We’ve done this historically anyway. So the information is there, but going forward, it will be the quarterly that will keep us going. Councilor? Thank you, good to know.

I do have another question through the chair too. And this is 1682, the policy number 1682. And we are removing 1683 and going with 1682. And when I read the policy, 1682 says, may require public notification.

And as we remove 1683, it says will be required and through any concerns about those changes that we’re making by removing one policy. And maybe the other policy is. Ms. Mcgally.

Thank you for the question through you. Chair, in terms of the 1682 does cover all the aspects and it really is at the discretion of Committee and Council to ask for public participation meeting, should you choose to. And it’s better to build that flexibility and rather than honing in again, we’re trying to get applications through and with another process that would have already dealt with it, let’s say at the zoning stage and then going through a public participation meeting again with the site plan, where they’re rehashing the same zoning issues. And we’re trying to again streamline the process, but leave it to Council’s discretion on the applications where there are certain applications where you may want to see it again.

Councilor. Thank you for that. ‘Cause that leads into my last question about the holding provision for PPMs that is at the discretion of the Committee as always. Just want to confirm that.

Ms. Mcgally. Through you, Chair, yes, that’s correct. However, 10 or less units that would not be the case.

Can you repeat that, please? So in terms of the public participation meeting, yes, it would be at the discretion of Council. However, meetings with 10 or less units that would not be the case. Councilor.

Yes, thank you for reminding us about that. And that’s through Bill 23. So with that, those are my questions. Thank you.

  • Okay, thank you. Any other Committee members would like to wait in here? This is in Councilors. Okay, seeing none, when he will permit, I’ll just make a comment.

I want to thank staff, you know, guys of doing a lot of dealing with law changes. And you know, as Deputy Mayor said, it is one of many, but it’s important as we proceed to 47,000 homes and to get housing that’s desperately needed. So I just want to thank planning and building personnel for being flexible and dealing with organizational changes and how you do your business. I understand it’s tough when you serve a certain way of doing things and now you’re required to change things.

But knowing full well, it’s for the greater good of quicker turnaround, more efficiency. And at the end of the day, getting people housed. So I just want from the Chair’s position to express that. So we have a motion moved and seconded.

I will call the vote. Opposed and the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you and we’ll move on to 3.5, which is PPM regarding 614 West Mount Crescent. And before I open the PPM, I’ll just remind people here and committee members, we’ve approved the zoning change here.

So staff went back based on some issues that were raised at our last PAC meeting with regard to some additions, perhaps for site plan consideration. And that’s what we are dealing with today. So I will look for a motion to open the PPM, Councilor Hillyer, seconded by Councilor Frank, and I’ll call the motion vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

So we have the recommendations for site plan additional considerations from staff. So we’ve had that in our report. I’ll just see if the applicant is in attendance and would like to address the committee. Please sir, state your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Scott Allen, MHBC, planning on acting on behalf of the applicant. At this time, we just wanted to indicate that we’re supportive of the staff’s recommendation providing additional direction for site plan approval. I also wanted to mention that in relation to clause 13, which relates to landscaping matters, particularly along boundary areas, that at the previous committee meeting, we stated that we would work with the neighboring property owner to the south to effectively come up with an appropriate screening consideration.

We have not specifically a chance to meet with the neighbors, who I believe are here this evening, but that’s fully in the intent as things move forward. We just simply haven’t got to a detailed landscape plan yet to even kind of explore opportunities and particular species and things of that nature that we want to review with the neighbors and ensure that we provide a decent screening initiative or arrangement for them. Thank you and gladly answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you.

Okay, at this point, I’ll look to any members of the public that would like to address the committee. Please give us your name and address if so desired, ma’am, and you have five minutes. My name is Rose Margala, my husband, Frank, and I, as you know, live at 628 Westbound Crescent, right next door to this townhouse development. Excuse me.

Wouldn’t I have, could you just move your mic down a bit? We’re just having trouble hearing you. Please go ahead, sorry about that. Start again.

Yeah, please go. My name is Rose Margala, my husband, Frank, and I, live at 628 Westbound Crescent, as you know, right next door to this townhouse development. We were here one month ago, March 27, to express to the planning board our desire to have privacy from the exposure to the three story townhouses and the parking lot right next to our deck and backyard. We have a beautiful, fairly large concrete deck that is four feet above the ground, and seven foot fence, which is proposed, would not be high enough to give us privacy.

As four weeks ago, we requested that cedar trees be planted about two feet apart and about two feet higher than the fence, that in a few years would grow and give us additional privacy. We request that the cedar trees be shown on the site plan and also the seven foot wood fence privacy is important to us. And we trust this request can be accomplished. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons that would wish to address the committee that there anyone online? Through you, Chair, there is no one online. Okay, thank you.

I’ll look at the committee to make a motion to close the PPM, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put this on the floor for committee discussion, Councillor. Councillor Van Mirbergen, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I wanna start by thanking committee and staff for the series of mitigative recommendations that are being put forward here regarding 614 West Mount Crescent. And also in particular, the movement now and the realignment of the driveways from both 608 Commissioners Road West with 614 so that they’re basically in line with each other. The previous location at 615 West Mount would have a series of vehicles constantly shining headlights into that particular residence.

Obviously, we hear the concerns of the next door neighbor and I think most of those concerns, including the planting of the appropriate species of trees, have been addressed in this list of mitigative measures. So once again, I wanted to thank, and again, going back to the realignment, that is something you would never see happen where you get a reconsideration of an alignment like that in Boston, it would never happen in Boston. And should we be surprised? No, because they’re home to a team like the Bruins.

I’ve got to say, justice was needed out last night and it was done in the sense of purity and light. So thank you and appreciate it, thank you. Lesson learned by the chair, never opened the door. Any other comments or questions of non-hockey nature from the committee?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank the public for coming out.

And I think we’ve heard loud and clear the importance of privacy. I understand that myself. And I do have a question through you, Mr. Chair.

I know in the recommendation we’re looking at a seven foot fence I’d like to, I also heard from the public that they would like the cedar hedge. And I would assume a larger cedar hedge. I also heard from the applicant, there’s more conversation to be had. So I guess through you, just to staff, just to understand, we can only go seven feet or with a fence just to understand our policies is my first question.

I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. The height maximum is seven feet.

It’s actually six feet in the pipeline control by us, seven in the fence. So we typically don’t go beyond seven feet. Also with the recommendation to the pipeline approval authority, we will be looking for robust planning along the property line, which was brought up as part of the resolution at the last planning environment committee meeting. Sure, like that word for best planting.

And I would really encourage the neighbors and the applicant to work together. It is in our recommendation to encourage the robust planting. So I will be supporting the recommendation. I am also pleased to see the installation of sidewalks.

I know there’s a lot of development going on in this area. A lot of changes going on in the community. And the importance of buffering and the removal of trees is really gonna change a lot in the neighborhood. But I have confidence that by putting in more plantings, encouraging or growth in tree plantings will give some stability back into the neighborhood.

So I will be supporting the recommendation. And glad to see that we were able to come with a compromise with removing that driveway further up to, which I hope will make the entrances and coming and going of cars going closer to commissioners road as opposed to going through the neighborhood too. I’m really pleased to see that change as well. So those are my comments.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? May I have a, we have Councilor Hopkins, did you make it, did you move that?

Yes, I’ll move the recommendation. Okay, and yeah, seconder, Deputy Mayor of seconds. If the committee will allow me, I’ll just follow up. First thing I’d like to say is there’s 14 items that added clauses that will be going to site plan.

And number 13 said specifically included enhanced privacy aspects such as a seven foot high fences and more evergreen trees or cedar hedges. So we hear what you’re saying. And I think this is an example of what I’d like to see going forward. As we do more info, it has an effect on the neighborhood.

So I wanna thank the applicant for hearing neighborhood concerns and staff incorporating that into what we decide here at committee. Because it is a challenge as info becomes more of our, our ways of addressing our housing situation. So with that, I’ll look to call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

Thank you. We’ll move on to items for direction. There are none. And I see no deferred matters or additional business.

So we will go into the confidential portion of our meeting. We’ll ask the clerk to prepare the room. Please. - Do I need a motion to make?

I’ll look for a motion to move into confidential. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

Sorry. So we’re now back in session. I’ll ask Councillor Hopkins to report it. I’d like to report that progress was made.

Thank you. I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Call hand vote.

We are adjourned. Thank you.