May 23, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:02 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 S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items 2.1 to 2.8 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-05-10 CACP Report 6

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on May 10, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Building Division Monthly Report - March 2023

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (2.2) Building Division Monthly Report - March 2023

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

2.3   Post Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring Update

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (2.3) Post Development EIS Update

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “Post-Development Environmental Impact Study Monitoring Update” BE RECEIVED for information.  (E05-2023)

Motion Passed

2.4   5-year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs - Background Analysis

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (2.6) 5-Year Review Community Improvement Plans and Financial Programs Background Analysis

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “5-Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs Background Analysis” BE RECEIVED for information.  (D19-2023)

Motion Passed

2.5   5-Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentives Programs

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (2.5) 5-Year Review Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the evaluation of Community Improvement Plan and Financial Incentive Programs:

a)  the staff report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “5-Year Review - Community Improvement Plans and Financial Incentive Programs”, summarizing community consultations and Civic Administration’s comprehensive review of the City’s existing Community Improvement Plans and associated Financial Incentive Programs BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the draft recommendations appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” for public review until June 12, 2023.     (D19-2023)

Motion Passed

2.6   Heritage Alteration Permit - 27 Bruce Street - Wortley Village-Old South Conservation District (HAP23-015-L)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (2.5) 27 Bruce Street (HAP23-015-L)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of the front porch on the heritage designated property at 27 Bruce Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

it being noted that the porch alterations do not comply with the policies and guidelines of the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District Plan.   (R01-2023)

Motion Passed

2.7   Closed School Site: Evaluation and Approach (1040 Hamilton Road, former Fairmont Public School)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - 1040 Hamilton Road - Former Fairmont PS - Surplus School Site - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the letter of interest from the Thames Valley District School Board for the surplus school site at 1040 Hamilton Road:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to express an interest in these lands for the purposes of providing the identified municipal needs of affordable housing and parkland; and,

b) the report dated May 23, 2023 entitled “Closed School Site: Evaluation and Approach (1040 Hamilton Road, former Fairmont Public School) BE RECEIVED for information.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

2.8   Exemption from Part Lot Control By-law - 1005, 1021, 1051, 1065, 1213 and 1221 Meadowlark Ridge (P-9609)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (2.8) 1005 1021 1051 1065 1213 and 1221 Meadowlark Ridge (P-9609)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application by Rembrandt Meadowlilly Inc., to exempt the following lands from Part Lot Control:

a) pursuant to subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023, to exempt lands located at 1005, 1021, 1051, 1065, 1213 and 1221 Meadowlark Ridge, legally described as part of Blocks 1, 4 and 13 on Registered Plan 33M-603, and Parts 5, 6, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 35 on Plan 33R-20017, from the Part Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the said Act for a period not to exceed two (2) years; and,

b) the applicant BE ADVISED that the cost of registration of the above-noted by-law is to be borne by the applicant in accordance with City policy.    (D04-2023)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   340-390 Saskatoon Street (Z-9599 / O-9600)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.1) 340-390 Saskatoon Street (Z-9599 O-9600)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Four99 Inc., relating to the properties located at 340-390 Saskatoon Street:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at a future Council meeting, to amend the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2016, by AMENDING policy 1070B for Specific Policies in the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Holding Residential R2/Restricted Office Special Provision (h-216R2-3/RO(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R2/Restricted Office Special Provision (h-216R2-3/RO(_)) Zone;

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

-    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would broaden the scope of permitted uses in an existing building with existing light industrial and associated office uses.  (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   847-851 Wonderland Road South (Z-9597)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.2) 847-851 Wonderland Road South (Z-9597)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the  application by 1216571 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 847-851 Wonderland Road South, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(7)) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(_)) Zone;

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

-    T. Brydges, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Shopping Area 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 medical/dental offices in a convenient and accessible location to meet the needs of neighbourhood residents.  (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.3   135 Villagewalk Boulevard (SPA23-005) - Public Site Plan Meeting

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.3) 135 Villagewalk Blvd (SPA23-005)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Uptown Commercial Centre c/o Carlos Ramirez, relating to the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to facilitate the construction of the commercial building; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Council has no issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and the Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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 Site Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which directs development to designated growth areas and that development be adjacent to existing development;

  •    the proposed Site Plan generally conforms to the policies of the Shopping Area Place Type and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law; and,

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   Additional Residential Unit Amendments as a Result of More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23) (OZ-9581)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.4) Additional Residential Unit Amendments (Bill 23) (OZ-9581)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements for additional residential units:

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 June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the Official Plan (the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) policies relating to additional residential units in accordance with new requirements in the Planning Act, which were changed through the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23);

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023 TO AMEND the regulations of Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 relating to additional residential units, to conform with the recommended amendments to the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

c)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting; and,

d)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current parking and driveway width policies in additional residential units and report back at a future Planning and Environment Committee meeting;

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

-    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

-    S. Levin, Orchard Park/ Sherwood Forest Ratepayers Association;

-    A. Kaplansky;

-   J. Zaifman, CEO, London Homebuilders Association;

-   S. Bentley, Interim President, Broughdale Community Association;

-   C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings and Ironstone Building Company; and,

-   J. Liu;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including policy 1.4.3 that requires that the City to plan for an appropriate mix of housing types and densities and permit, where appropriate “all forms of residential intensification, including additional residential units.”;

  •    the recommended amendments will permit additional residential units in accordance with changes to the Planning Act made through the More Homes Act; and,

  •    the recommended amendments align with City initiatives to increase housing supply, including affordable housing. This includes The City of London Housing Pledge that was approved by Council in February, 2023.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to add a new clause d) which reads as follows:

“d)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the current parking and driveway width policies in additional residential units;“

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

3.5   327 Thompson Road (Z-9579)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.5) 327 Thompson Road (Z-9579)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Emvy Group Inc., relating to the property located at 327 Thompson Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(*)) Zone and a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(**)) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

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

-    N Dyjack, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

3.6   644-646 Huron Street (OZ-9580)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.6) 644-646 Huron Street (OZ-9580)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2614442 Ontario Inc. relating to the property located at 644-646 Huron Street:

a)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law to amend the Official Plan or the City of London, 2016 by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan, BE APPROVED;

b)    the attached, revised, proposed by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-5*R9-3(14)*H13) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone, BE APPROVED;

c)    the Site Plan Control Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan control approval process:

i) the recommendations of the Noise Study be implemented;

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

iii)  a building design that differentiates the ground floor through the use of pedestrian-scaled elements such as but not limited to, canopies and lighting, alternate window sizes/placement than the floors above;

iv)  a building design that breaks up the perceived mass of the building through façade articulation (recesses and projections), appropriately scaled windows, the use of high quality materials, and appropriate roof forms and pitches;

v)  differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units;

vi)  investigation by the applicant into whether the Reid Drain storm sewer crossing the property is still active. If active, the Site Plan Control Authority will work with the applicant to consider the possibility of the sewer being re-routed around the building, or alternatively, connected to a storm sewer on the municipal road allowance of sufficient capacity, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;

vii) inclusion of a functional layby on site in accordance with the Site Plan Control By-law; 

viii) consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval; and,

ix)   consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of two (2) or more affordable units be undertaken as part of the Site Plan proces;

d) the Civic Administration, including but not limited to the staff of the Municipal Housing Development team, BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to provide for affordable housing units in the above-noted proposed development;

it being noted that any such units could be a part of the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units, as well as assist with Council’s Strategic focus to increase access to a range of quality affordable house options; and,

e) pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the recommended by-law;

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

  • a communication dated May 18, 2023, from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

-    Y. Lavie.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.7   1120-1126 Oxford Street East and 2 & 6 Clemens Street (Z-9560)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.7) 1120-1126 Oxford Street East and 26 Clemens Street (Z-9560)

Moved by S. Franke

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 2863382 Ontario Inc. c/o Royal Premier Developments, relating to the properties located at 1120-1126 Oxford Street East and 2 and 6 Clemens Street:

a)    consistent with Policy 43_1 of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, a portion of the subject lands, representing 2 and 6 Clemens Street, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 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 R2/Office Conversion (R2-2/OC5) Zone and a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H34) Zone;

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

i)    provide adequate outdoor amenity space, either at grade or through a combination of at grade amenity space and roof top terrace(s);

ii)    differentiate the main building entrance from ground floor units;

iii)    provide a functional layby on site in accordance with the Site Plan Control By-law;

iv)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval;

v)    execution of the lane closure and the provision of a public access easement/easement agreement should be coordinated to occur prior to final Site Plan Approval; 

vi)    at the time of Site Plan Approval, the building design is to be similar to that which was considered at the time of the Zoning By-law Amendment application; and,

vii)    any future Site Plan application for the subject site BE CONSIDERED by the Urban Design Peer Review Panel;

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

  • a project fact sheet from M. Davis, siv-ik planning / design;

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

-    J. Smolarek, siv-ik planning / design;

-    M. Toth;

-    D. Van Boxmeer;

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

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

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

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

  •    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 that is geared towards the intent, and growth, of the Urban Corridor Place Type.    (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.8   129-131 Base Line Road West (Z-9578)

2023-05-23 Staff Report - (3.8) 129-131 Base Line Road West (Z-9578)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2796538 Ontario Inc. c/o RPH Developments, relating to the properties located at 129-131 Base Line Road West:

a) the attached, revised, proposed by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 6, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R9 (R9-7H32) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (hR9-7(_)*H51) Zone;

b) the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues for 129-131 Base Line Road West through the site plan review process:

i) a Water Capacity Analysis shall be submitted with the first submission of site plan;   

ii) ensure a 3 metre planting area for trees between the property edge and the edge of the parking garage to provide full protection to any boundary trees and critical root zones; and,

iii) additional landscaping and/or setbacks will be required to address the removal of the watercourse;

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

  • a communication dated May 17, 2023 from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

  • H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  • ;

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 to Zoning By-law Z.-1 conforms to the in-force policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including, but not limited to the High Density Residential Overlay, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016; and, 

  •  the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Primary Transit Area and Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of new development.   (D04-2023)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to separate clause a) from the recommendation to be voted on separately:

“a) the revised, attached, proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 6, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R9 (R9-7H32) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (hR9-7(_)*H51) Zone;“

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Planning and Environment Committee convened, in Closed Session, from 7:15 PM to 7:35 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:38 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 (3 hours, 19 minutes)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to call the ninth meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, meaning to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed, view live streaming on YouTube, and the city website.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, Haudenosaunee, Leno Peiwok, and Atawangran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit 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 readings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEC@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. We’d like to just call for any disclosures of Pecuniary interest at this time. Seeing none, we’ll move on to the consent items.

Councillor Frank would like to just post a few questions to staff, and based on what she hears, she might consider pulling that item. So I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. Very lengthy PAC agenda tonight.

So we’re in for some fun. Through the chair, I was hoping to ask a couple questions about the EIS report. One, I just wanna say thanks very much for bringing it to us. I know there’s lots in the community who’ve been eagerly awaiting this, and we are excited to see it.

And I think it provided a lot of really good information for us specifically understanding what happens in developments, or ESAs and other natural heritage areas that are adjacent to new developments, and considering that of the 12 locations, 11 sites saw significant changes, a variety of them saw changes in species that were originally there, as well as in the composition of the features. So whether that’s in addition to invasive species or removal of other native species or encroachment. So I do think it provides a lot of really good information, and my takeaway from it is that any development adjacent to a natural heritage space is going to impact that space. And I think the highlight for me from this report was that it clearly outlined that the 10 meter minimum buffer is required, given that the highest impact were directly adjacent to the development.

So I’m wondering in our EMGs, I know that we have some buffers of 30 meters, but I’m wondering if that’s consistent across all of our natural heritage features. For example, I know beside a wetland, it’s a 30 meter buffer. I just wanted to confirm that 30 meter was the standard, or if there are toward or buffer requirements. I got a staff on the question of buffers.

Through the chair, this is Emily Williamson, a ecologist with the city. 30 meters is not consistent throughout the EMGs in table 5.2. 30 meters is used for all of our significant woodlands, all of our provincially significant wetlands. The only time 10 meters is used is with respect to woodlands.

And the only time in table 5.2 that a lesser buffer is considered is with respect to upland corridors and migratory pathways, and that’s five meters. So the staff report notes a recommendation to increase all buffers to a minimum of 10 meters. But we do note that there needs to be some flexibility in so far as we want to encourage inward and upward growth. And we do understand that these natural arid areas are within an urban context.

Councillor? Thank you, yes. And through the chair, I think just a quick follow-up on that. I’m wondering given the scientific information that was provided in this report, if staff are considering a 30 meter standard for woodlots and for other remaining natural heritage features, again, given that we’ve seen a decline in the heritage features that are adjacent to these developments.

I know you suggested 10 meters or five, but given that the biggest impact was in the 10 meters adjacent, I’m wondering why a 30 meter setback is not being considered as a universal standard, I guess. And then having the exceptions be the exceptions, not the rule. I’ll go to staff for that. Through the chair, we’ll certainly consider 30 meters as we look to update the EMGs that will be coming forth in response to the provincial and legislative updates that we are expecting to receive.

But we’ll go through that process at that time and there’ll be full consultation with both the public and the developers at that time. Councilor. Wonderful, okay. So we’ll come back to us and maybe hopefully with my fingers crossed, it will be a 30 meter.

Then the other two questions I had about this was given this outline of variety of issues that were happening in these 11 different locations. Is there plans for staff to either through our own staff or through the UTRCA fix a lot of the issues? So I noticed there are lines of encroachment of people dumping native, sorry, invasive species in this area, is there a plan to remedify or rectify those issues? Go to staff on that.

Through the chair, we are looking through planning and development manages the environmentally significant areas within the city. Separate contracts are completed by forestry for the woodlands. So not all natural areas are managed consistently, they’re managed to separate contracts. We will be coming forth with some kind of a business case or an ask in terms of increasing that coming this year is part of the multi-year budget.

But at this time, the plans are to continue to meet all of our London plan requirements and meet all the policies and the strategic plan items. Go on, sir. Thank you. Yes, I think given that we have identified that there are issues at all these sites, it would be nice to fix them.

So I look forward to a business case that outlines how we can address them. Last thing I noticed in the report was a mention of something called development securities. And I was just wondering if staff could outline what that is, that mechanism and maybe explain a bit better. I was just curious as to one more what it was and two, if there was a plan for staff to use development securities as a way to ensure restoration can properly occur.

Go to staff. Thank you through the chair. So development securities are currently taken at for various components within an agreement for a subdivision. So for example, to ensure that the road is constructed appropriately, sidewalks are in place, trees are planted and whatnot.

So I mean, there could be an opportunity to explore securities as an opportunity to ensure that we are getting the remediation completed. However, there needs to be a time requirement for that. And it would be something that we’d undertake through a larger review of the security policy, which I think should be coming forward later this year. Go on, sir.

Thank you. Well, those are my three major questions. And it sounds like in all cases, there is no direction needed ‘cause you guys are already looking ahead to do the work on all three. So thank you very much.

I do have questions about CIPs, but I don’t know if maybe I’ll pause and see if anyone else had others. Okay. So my understanding is that you do not wish to pull any items in the consent agenda. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So this one is related to CIPs. So I actually think to facilitate moving the consent agenda along. So I’m looking at table six in Appendix A, this is one example that I wanna share.

I’d like some staff feedback so I can decide whether or not I need to pull this item to deal with separately. So I’m gonna reference Appendix A, table six, item 18. That civic administration be directed to investigate the feasibility of amending the upgrade to building code loan program offered in downtown and OEV for CIP projects to increase the amount of the forgivable portion from 12.5 to 50% for residential units created in building levels above the ground floor and from 12.5% to 75% for commercial units created in building levels above the ground floor. I actually do not want to further incentivize above ground floor commercial spaces at this time.

I wanna see more incentivization of residential unit conversions. So I’m not supportive of that particular direction in Appendix A. And so before we advance too much further, I need to hear from staff if all of these are being dealt with as a group if we need to pull this to amend some of those directions because I’m not supporting incentivizing above ground floor commercial units at this time. I’ll go to staff on that concern.

Through the chair, that particular recommendation is related to the query of vacancy reduction strategy which has not yet come before council. And in order to be able to make that decision, it would probably be better for you to receive that report and then have a full understanding of what all of the recommendations in the CIP review have in terms of their impacts. Right now you would be looking at it isolated without the benefit of why commercial was proposed as a higher order of return than residential. Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, so my concern is if we’re passing all of these civic administration be directed to investigate and I’ve seen this before where to investigate or to consider becomes interpreted as shall when really what I wanted some information back. So I want clarification that investigating this is not going to result in a de facto approval that this will come back as part of the CIP overall review when we get that core area vacancy piece back as well. Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, just to give a little bit more context. So the core area of vacancy study will be coming to the May C, C strategic priorities and policy committee. So you’ll have a little bit more details at that meeting as far as why would the rationale for this change and then in the June PEC meeting we’ll have an opportunity to hear from the public and everyone else. So if this is a comment that we can take back at this time for further discussion at that June meeting for what we bring back after we hear the commentary from the committee, from the community and then also we’ll be able to take back what we heard from the SPPC committee and then incorporate that into our strategy moving forward.

So it’s helpful to have this flag as initial concern and hopefully what we can do is take that information also that we get from the rest of council at SPPC and bring something back that is appropriate for the community and for council. Deputy Mayor, does that satisfy you or would you like this item pulled? Well, I think it satisfies me. I am also aware that there’s probably a fair number of our staff here who are here to answer questions on this item and putting it to five as deferred matters holds them here an awful lot longer than I would care to hold them if we don’t have to.

So I think rather than pull it, I’m fine with leaving it in the consent agenda for now and so that we can start asking some questions and comments realizing that this may end up being further pulled as we have some of those questions and comments and some of the answers arise but I don’t wanna delay people from getting home any longer than I have to. So I’ll leave it in consent for now. So a bit of a conundrum. If we put the consent items on the floor and we pass them and we cannot go back and pull them retroactively.

So would you be willing to maybe ask some questions like Councillor Frank did to further investigate whether you would like to pull it or not? I’d be okay with that. Well through you Chair, that’s exactly what I was intending was let’s all of the consent agenda on the floor for questions and comments. But before we call the vote, there may be an amendment to the consent agenda to pull something to be dealt with separately depending on some of the answers.

Fair enough. So what I’ll do is I’ll put all the consent items on the floor. I’m not gonna look for a mover a second here at this point and we’ll just open up to questions about many where you wanna go. Who wants to start?

Councillor Frank. Thanks, I love this model. I feel like I got a little free for all. I guess I’m gonna pop up to the top.

I noticed that the advisory committee for planning lost quorum, I think after one item. So I assume somebody dropped off Zoom. I think that we’ve also seen that committee how not have quorum two times, which significantly delayed a heritage permit, which is legally required to go through it. I’m just wondering, is there solution to this issue?

Given that in the last like four months, they’ve not been able to complete a meeting three times in four months. So I just wanted to go through staff to see if there’s any, or through the chair to staff to see if there’s any solutions. So I don’t know if that’s a question for staff that I’m looking at right now or for the clerk ‘cause it’s more of a procedural matter. So maybe I will ask the clerk to comment on if an advisory committee, is there a number where if quorum’s not reached and decisions are being delayed, do we, does the council take action?

Through the chair, that’s a great question. We are still working on the, sorry, the clerk’s office is still working on the terms of reference for the new advisory committees, filling vacancies. At this point, I apologize, I don’t have a better answer for you. Councillor.

That’s okay, thank you. I think I just wanted it noted that I think we need to figure this issue out ‘cause I’ve seen lots of advisory committees lose quorum or not even start from quorum. And I don’t know if it’s from COVID or if it’s because all of them have been online and people haven’t been able to meet in person yet, or people didn’t know the workload that they’re signing up for when they signed up to be on advisory committee, but I’ve noticed this across almost all of our advisory committees. And I think that we need to figure out a solution because especially with the planning one, heritage applications have to go through it and it’s starting to get frustrating I think both for me but then I’m sure for the applicants who are trying to put through their heritage permits.

So just mostly wanted to get noted and maybe it’s a governance working group thing or a clerk thing. I’m just not sure who to send this to to get resolved. Councilor, I think you raised a great point and I noticed that as well and it’s of concern. I just conferred with a clerk and that would be an SPPC, maybe agenda item.

So maybe you and I can get together and speak to the chair of that committee and see and staff and to see, you know, maybe which direction we should go or if that’s already being looked at, but I think I’m glad you raised that. Any other clerk wants to weigh in? If I can please refer this to Deputy City Clerk Sarah Korman, please. Ms.

Korman, please go ahead. Hi, yes, through the chair, there are a number of things currently in motion. We have received previous direction to return to a hybrid solution. So an in-person as well as online for community advisory committees and we are positioned well to have that in place by the end of this quarter as well.

We are actively reaching out to members to ensure their interest is still up top of mind and they are still interested in serving on the committee. So we will be following up on the information we received from that survey. Thank you for that information. There are any other questions on the consent items?

Councilor Frank. Thank you. Now I’m gonna pop over back to CIPs. So going through both reports, I just wanted to give a little bit more clarity and I appreciated the questions the Deputy Mayor had because I was also a bit worried that by approving the second report, we’d be approving kind of all, I think, 30 different recommendations in that big table.

And I’ve been finding that perhaps maybe it’s the criteria for success I’m struggling with. My understanding with downtown and Aldi’s village, we have, and with some of the other areas, especially with the residential, CIPs, our only criteria for success is population. And once we achieve that population, we will consider it a success and we will close down that CIP. And I’m really struggling with that because I think that just having units, random units in the downtown or core areas does not mean success personally for me.

I think that having affordable units in the core is something that I have a higher priority and much more willing to have taxpayer money spent on CIPs where affordable units or sustainable buildings are being included. So I just want to confirm to staff that by proving this, we’re just getting more information back and at a later date we can choose which CIPs we wanna keep funding and which ones we wanna take funding away from because I’m not currently interested in funding all of the existing ones. Local stuff. I’ll just start here and if Jim has anything to add.

So any of the changes, if there is a monetary component of that, it will need to go through our multi-year budget process, if it’s something that’s different than the current process, we’ll have the opportunity to be able to make some choices on that as well. There’s also other mechanisms that we’re looking at providing non-monetary that should be able to provide incentives for the downtown through a rethink zoning process as well. So there might be multiple opportunities to be able to provide some opportunities for more affordable housing in the downtown. However, regard to this report, nothing as far as a financial commitment will be made even in June at this point.

So there will be the ability to have that decision and at the June meeting will absolutely be the opportunity to make sure that you’re comfortable with what moves forward. So in my correct Mr. Mathers and seeing that this will come back to PAC in June and we will have a review of what staff is advising at that time, Councilor. Thanks, yes, I appreciate that.

And I guess my follow up for that is, so that’s kind of the financial impact. My second question is the criteria. So right now for some of the CIPs, the only criteria that I can find and I could have read the report wrong is the population target. And I’m wondering, again, for me, I’d rather have different targets and they’d be affordable units or green building standards.

So I’m wondering for even the existing CIPs, if we were to continue funding them, if we are able to, and I noticed like number 24 to 52627, like further down, we’re saying like explore these new ones. Again, I personally would rather spend $25 million on affordable units than $25 million on seven high-race buildings with zero affordable units. So I’m just trying to get understanding if we can adjust the criteria. Staff, through the criteria, you absolutely are able to adjust the criteria by amending a community improvement plan.

That’s what direction we would ask for you if you were so inclined on June 12th. Councilor. Thank you, yes, that is exactly what I would like to do. So I’ll wait till June 12th for that as well.

Okay, I’m glad you were able to. Those are good questions, and then thank you for those. Any other committee members? Councilor Lewis.

I’m sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so this is on the CIP programs as well. And again, I’m playing an example out of here. There may be some other references.

First of all, I will say the staff very thorough report. Lots in there, definitely hard to absorb it all on a long weekend. But nonetheless, I did take a look through it. And I will say for all of the land changes that are suggested, I support all of those.

I think they all make a whole lot of sense when you’re bringing a few missing parcels of land into the CIP areas that can create a more complete neighborhood opportunity for those CIP incentives to be utilized. But I wanted to ask why. So in this one, we’re table five of Appendix A, decrease a financial incentive program scope. This is item 13.

The funding for the Industrial Lands Corridor Enhancement Program be suspended for the upcoming multi-year budget cycle, it being noted that the program will continue to be improved. Since 2018, we’ve had zero applications to this fund. Typically, when we’re seeing industrial land uses, whether we’re along the 401, 402 corridor, or frankly and selfishly as an east ender, I’d rather see it include Veterans Memorial Parkway. But most of what we’re seeing is new builds.

And so through site plan approvals and other mechanisms at our disposal, we can create landscaped open space that creates some privacy and some separation from residential areas and those kind of things. So I’m wondering why the recommendation is just to suspend it rather than terminate this program. When we’re talking about industrial lands, we’re extremely competitive in our pricing. We know we need to add more industrial lands to our inventory so that we can attract new businesses.

So with all of that being said, I don’t understand the rationale for just suspending it rather than terminating it. And I’m wondering if staff can provide some commentary on that. Go staff. Through the chair, it gives you more flexibility.

If you suspend it, you can keep the program on the books and you don’t have to finance it. And then if for more years from now, something changes, you don’t have to go through the process of approving it again. It’s there and it’s available to use for future council. That’s why it’s deemed to be better to keep your options open.

Deputy Mayor. Okay, I appreciate that answer. I may respectfully disagree. I think if we need to bring it back, then it should be a new discussion.

But I understand the point that Mr. Yanchula is making about the value of not having to reinvent the wheel. Should there be a perceived value in the future? So that’s one of the ones that I wanted to ask about, the other piece of this that, and I will, you know, again, underline, it was a long weekend.

So if I missed it, I missed it. But I wanted to know if there might be, and I know that some of it is in the new suggested CIPs, but if thought was given, and Councillor Frank touched on this in terms of how we’re measuring things, if thought has been given to whether CIPs need to be more tied to specific goals, rather than tailored to individual neighborhoods. And I will say, I want to exclude the core for a minute, ‘cause I recognize that that’s a unique beast when it comes to planning matters and getting things moving in the core. But when I think about, for example, some of the BIA CIPs, if we really need to have an individual CIP for each BIA, or whether we should have a template CIP that says these are the things, facade improvement, green building retrofits, security measures that are applicable to all the BIA’s, and measure our targets based on the number of uptakes we had on the program as a whole, cross our three.

And I know the BIA’s are meant to address a need in a neighborhood, but if it might be better from an administrative point of view, as well as for clarity to the owners in the BIA’s, in particular, rather than having different CIPs in each area, if we had a standard CIP that we simply rolled out for each BIA area with some measures like that in it. So I’m just wondering if staff could comment on that in a little bit. Okay, another staff? Through the chair, that’s absolutely an opportunity to do that.

That would be basically taking all of the different ones and combining them into a different program. So a couple of the things that we really do focus on, and we’re developing these programs as one is, what are the problems you’re trying to solve? And then there’s also that financial piece, because with a lot of these programs, there’s minimal caps, except maybe captain funding, but we need to make sure from a finance perspective that it’s just not a blank check across the city. So a lot of the CIPs, as you see them now, are very much specific to regions, and there are some that are actually applicable.

The actual financial incentive is applicable to multiple CIPs, which then provides that consistency. So there is a ability to have that approach. This is a regime of various programs that have been developed over 20 years, if we want to take a step back and look at just providing something more holistic that would be applied, we can do that. Being very mindful of the financial piece that it has to be something that’d be quite specific and something that as a council, you can approve as part of a business case and know that that cost is going to be reasonable a big forward and be locked in over that four year period too.

So that is an option that’s available to us. Do you have team here? That’s great. I appreciate that sort of thought process.

And what sort of spurred that question was seeing the recommendation that we combine administratively the downtown, the midtown and the OEV into a single core CIP, which from an administrative perspective, I think makes a lot of sense. And I think that so many of the issues overlap that it makes a lot of sense to do that so that it’s streamlined and clear. And there’s no question about, oh, I’m on the wrong side of Adelaide. So I’m now in this CIP instead of that CIP.

So that kind of spurred the idea that should we do more of this amalgamation of some of these, particularly in BIA corridors where Hyde Park and Argyle, for example, might have very similar needs. But I think we also want to encourage very similar goals in some of these BIAs, in particular, where the CIPs are being applied. And that’s why I was really happy to see number 24. And I know I’ll probably make Councilor Frank Smile saying that I really support the idea of investigating the feasibility of adding energy upgrades and climate change adaptations to the CIP.

To me, honestly, that makes a lot more sense in terms of a welcoming neighbourhood in some ways than a facade upgrade. So I’m glad to see that that’s being considered. And I hope that that’s something that as we talk about similarities between some of the CIPs that we consider are their measures that should just be plugged into each of them as a matter of course, because it supports the overall strategic plan goals of the city. So that’s kind of my thoughts on that.

Hopefully to all of our staff’s relief, the answers that I’ve gotten mean, I don’t need to pull this to be voted on separately. So hopefully some of you will be able to get home before it’s time to put your kids to bed. But I do appreciate the work that’s gone into this. Any other comments on the consent agenda?

Before I look for a mover and a seconder, can I get a motion on the consent items? Council Frank moved, can I get a seconder? Deputy Mayor Lewis, any further questions, comments before I call the vote? Seeing none, I won’t call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, forward to zero. Thank you, I just want to thank staff. You know, when we have items, our reports are going to consent agenda doesn’t minimize the importance of these reports. These are extremely valuable.

They’re a great learning tool for us as counselors and for the public. And sometimes, you know, they can be deemed to be minimized because they’re at a consent agenda. There isn’t any consent agenda is because staff see it as probably most likely to go through without too much contention. So for, you know, this, that we did get, you know, after a long weekend, it was a lot of reading this weekend.

But I just wanted to thank you so much for the work and for the fantastic information. And you can see from the questions asked today, the importance of these things. So thank you very much. I will move on to the scheduled items.

The first is 3.1, which is 340 to 390 Saskatoon Street. So I will look to committee to open the PPM. Can I get a mover? Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Council Frank and I will call the vote.

Sorry, I will. Yes, I’m just gonna log out and refresh ‘cause it’s not coming up. Okay, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero.

So thank you. This is a rezoning application to allow a wider range of offices. We have the staff report recommendation in our agenda. And at this time, I’ll look to the applicant if they would like to address the committee.

Please sir, state your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Harry Frucio, some with Salinka Preamma Limited.

We’re the authorized agents for the landowner and the applicant. I have really nothing to add, Mr. Chair. We’ve gone through the staff report.

We wanna thank staff for processing this application and due course and providing a positive recommendation. Really, it is just to expand the range of uses on the property to allow more efficient use of the existing building. So if there’s any questions, I’d certainly be able to answer them for you. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will look to the public now if they would like to address the committee. That’s clear, if there’s anybody online. To the chair, there’s no one online.

Thank you. Looking in chambers and I do not see any folks that would like to address us. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, the motion carries 40-0. I’ll open the floor to any questions, comments or motions for committee members. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Chair and through you, this of course is in ward two. So I have had some concerns and questions raised by members of the public about what these alternate uses might mean for the neighborhood. I have spoken to the applicant to understand that they have a tenant lined up, that this is gonna be primarily administrative office use with some potential for client services on a limited basis, but it will not be a primary site for client service delivery. And so I’m quite comfortable with that.

I will have a number of emails to reply to constituents for. Maybe I should ask the applicant to draft those for me, but I do appreciate all of the input that they provided in terms of where they’re going. And this is a space that has history of sitting vacant for periods of time. Elections Canada might not be happy with us because it’s often rented out temporarily during federal elections because it’s been an easy spot for a returning office, but I’d rather see it full 12 months of the year.

So I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation on this. Can I second? Councillor Frank, any further comments or questions before I call the vote, then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 40-0.

Thank you, I’ll move on to 3.2. This is regarding 847 to 851 Wonderland Road South. I understand it’s to allow medical dental offices. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 40-0. And we have the staff recommendation and report on our agenda, and I forgot to do this last item.

I’ll offer any technical questions from committee members at this time. Okay, seeing none, then I’ll ask if the applicant is here and would like to address the committee. Hello, thank you and through you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, council members, staff, and members of the public. My name is Kayla Bridges, and I’m a planning consultant with the link of preamel limited here on behalf of the landowner of 847 to 851 Wonderland Road South. First, I would like to thank staff for all of their hard work on this project to date. We’ve had the opportunity to review staff’s report and appreciate their consideration and the positive recommendation.

I’m here with today, seeking this committee’s approval of the application, and I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Bridges.

I’ll go to the public now. If they would like to address the committee, seeing none in the gallery, I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online or rooms. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay, thank you.

Seeing that there’s no one from the public that would like to address the committee, then I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for it to zero.

So I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members. Councilor Frank. I’ll move the motion to accept the staff recommendation. Thank you.

Okay, I have a second, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for it to zero.

Okay, thank you. We are at 3.3, which is to do with 135 Village Walk Boulevard. I’d like to get a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, and I will call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries for it to zero. Thank you. We have the staff recommendation and a report in our agenda. Is there any technical questions for staff at this moment?

Seeing none, then I’ll look to see if the applicant would like to address the committee. See anyone in the gallery? Has Clerk, is there online, anyone? Through you, Mr.

Chair, there’s no one online. Okay, thank you. At this time, if there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this issue, there’s your chance, anyone online clerk? Through you, Chair, there’s no one online.

Okay, thank you. Seeing nobody in the chambers would like to speak, then I will look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries for it to zero. Thank you. I will put the item on the floor for our committee members at this point, Councilor Frank. Thank you, and through the Chair, I did have a question as I was reviewing the comments from the public.

And I am just curious because the proposed development by the applicant does look much different than the photos submitted by the residents. I know that’s not always the same, but the residents did pull some of the photos of what the area was supposed to look like from the original applicant’s website. So I’m just curious as to if the aesthetics of the current application match may be the originally proposed ones because they do look significantly different in that one looks like a big box store with some signage and the other look like adorable heritage downtown lookin’ buildings. So I’m just curious as to if we’re approving the big box store photo stuff.

Through you, Mr. Chair, the application did go to the Urban Design Peer Review Panel prior to be submitted. The application before us does address the panel’s comments at this time. Thank you.

Councillor. Okay, I appreciate that. And then I just wanna confirm with the parking lot, are there gonna be, I’m not sure we’re probably following our current parking lot standards, but are there gonna be a similar amount of trees as to what was originally planned for the site? Because again, I found it hard to look at the drawings, which are aerial and kind of have lines all over them.

So I just curious as to know if there are a good amount of trees and natural buffers for such a large parking location. They’ll go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, the landscaping proposed does meet the site plan control by-law in terms of our landscape planting islands, the buffers from the street and what’s proposed currently.

Councillor. Thank you. And then I’m just curious, why are we requiring public site plan at this one? I just, we don’t see them very often, at least I haven’t since I started.

So I was just curious as to why this one is a public site plan. I wanna go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, the H5 on this one was placed during the original subdivision review process.

So there was the first one that came in for phase one. This is a subsequent portion for phase two, which is why we’re here today. Thank you. Councillor.

Thank you, no more questions. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or motions from committee members? Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation on this one. Can I get a seconder? I’ll second it. Any comments or questions before I call the vote?

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for the zero. Thank you. We’re now move on to 3.4 and these are involved some additional residential units amendments as a result of more homes built faster act, which is a long way of saying bill 23.

So I’ll go to staff now for a verbal presentation, please, for the committee. Thank you, excuse me, and through the chair, I’m happy to provide a brief overview of the proposed amendments. So these amendments are proposed, one to respond to the planning act changes made through bill 23 pertaining to additional residential units, but also to support London’s housing pledge and the target which council adopted a 47,000 dwelling units within 10 years. So this amendment is not intended to address all of bill 23, rather it focuses in on additional residential units and this particular aspect of that change to the planning act.

So I’ll go through the amendments and provide just a description of the intent and effect of them. These changes are also summarized in the report starting on page 183 of your agenda. So the first change is to the dwelling unit hierarchy and this is really a change to the language that we use, but it also changed how we consider additional residential units. So currently in the official plan, additional residential units are described as being ancillary and subordinate to the primary dwelling.

And so that language is proposed to be changed to say permitted in addition to the primary dwelling. So again, removing that concept of a hierarchy with a primary and secondary, but instead thinking of additional units as just there being two units on a site without one necessarily being prioritized over the others. With regard to the number and location of additional residential units, this changes exactly in line with the planning act change. And so it would allow two additional residential units per lot for a total of three dwelling units.

All of those units could be located within the main building and one could be located within an accessory building. With regard to unit size, the proposed amendment would remove the minimum unit sizes from section 4.6 of the zoning by-law. And it’s important to note here that this change goes beyond only additional residential units and would actually remove the minimum unit size from all dwellings across the city. We’re also proposing that we delete the 40% cap on additional residential units.

So currently in our regulations, additional dwelling units or residential units are limited to 40% of the total residential floor area of the building or on the lot, I should say. So that’s being proposed to be removed which goes back to that removal of the concept of a hierarchy of units. I would note that we are recommending to retain the five bedroom limit and that it applies to all dwellings on a lot including the primary and additional units. And that’s again because the five bedroom limit applies to the building type.

So it applies to single detached dwellings for example and not to the dwelling unit within that. So if there’s a primary dwelling and an additional dwelling, they would both be located within that primary building form which is the single detached dwelling. And so it’s not actually a regulation within the additional unit policies or regulations but rather it applies to that building typology of the single detached dwelling. Another change that is being recommended is to remove some of the neighborhood character requirements and so the intent of the policy and regulation as it stands today is to maintain the appearance of a single unit dwelling.

So that’s proposed to be removed and in order to facilitate that some restrictions are removed that would limit exterior alterations to support an additional residential unit as well as a zoning restriction that prohibits exterior entrances to the additional unit from the front of the building. So now you would be allowed to have the primary entrance to the additional unit located on the front of the building. There’s a change to the site plan approval process and this is again as a result of bill 23 removing site plan control from any residential development of 10 units or less as well as other various changes that are intended to clarify the policy or remove redundant regulations. One other thing I’ll note is that a revised by-law is also attached to the agenda and with that includes as an additional change not described in the report and it removes a policy and regulation that restricted additional residential units within flood plains.

So the planning act new language prohibits any official plan policy or zoning regulation from prohibiting an additional residential unit in association with a single detached semi detached or townhouse dwelling. The policy as it was written conflicted with that and that it did prohibit additional units within flood plains. My opinion is that conservation authority permits will still be required within flood plains or within regulated areas and would prohibit development within a floodplain. So in my view this doesn’t actually change the outcome but it does comply with the change that’s proposed in the planning act or that has been made to the planning act.

So just in summary then the recommended amendments include changes to the London plan and the zoning by-law for additional residential units. These amendments align with the planning act requirements made through bill 23 to support and permit additional residential units and also works with the housing pledge and municipal housing target of 47,000 units while retaining certain limits to ensure neighborhood context is also considered. Thank you so I correct an understanding Mr. Adema that what’s before us today is to bring our by-laws up to where bill 23 requires us to be but also there’s some additional changes as you referenced our movement to 47,000 homes or units.

That’s correct. There’s certain changes that we had to make for example the location of additional units and some of the restrictions on additional unit sizes had to be made to meet bill 23. However some of the other changes around building design are over and above that requirement and more in order to facilitate being able to achieve that 47,000 unit target. Thank you.

So I’ll ask committee members, we’re just gonna hold off on questions for staff until we hear from the public on this and then after we close the PPM then we will, then we can open it up for questions on this. So at this point I’ll go to the public to see who would like to address the committee. Mr. Wallace, please go ahead.

Oh, excuse me, I thank you, Councillor. I have once again jumped the gun. I’ll look for a motion to open the VPM, Councillor Frank, then second by, Deputy Mayor, I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero.

Thank you for Councillor. So I’ll go first to Mr. Wallace and then Mr. Levin.

After that, Mr. Wallace, please go ahead, you’ll find me. I beat Sandy out, wow, that’s good. My name is, my name is Mike Wallace and I’m the executive director for the London Development Institute.

I’m here in support of the OPA and the ZBA that’s being proposed tonight. Obviously it’s bringing you in line with what the law is, but I do want to encourage, I want to thank staff for the work on this and getting it here and making things happen sooner than later. We know we’re in a housing crunch in London and across the province and across the country and we support any opportunities for additional units that are able to be produced. The one thing from our perspective, because I represent development of new units, new homes, and a lot of people would see this as a retrofit or an addition to something that’s already there.

So I want to put it in your mind that going forward, let’s look for opportunities to improve the process at City Hall to be able to have purposely built new developments that have multiple units within a single lot. I know we have at least one builder in town who has made an attempt at trying to do that and there are some barriers to making that happen. Let’s work on getting those barriers out of the way so that we can get to that 47,000 new units in London that we have committed to to the province of Ontario. Two other things.

One, just a suggestion, you need an education and a marketing program to get homeowners to consider adding a second or third unit to their facilities, to their homes, to their lots. Because us just talking about it here tonight, as you can see by the crowd, it’ll take a while for it to get out that that’s actually a possibility. Then, as I’ve had your hat on before, there needs to be a program, in my view, for helping councillors understand to be able to respond because it will change neighbourhoods, or at least neighbours will think it does, if people start adding stuff to their backyard, adding units, and it will change. And I think for you to do your job properly, you need to be prepared.

And I think staff and industry owes you folks some help to make sure that you’re able to answer those questions when they do come from your constituents. The last thing I want, so that was it on today. I do want it, I just cannot resist, I’m sorry. Chair, you are absolutely right.

There were two items that we’ll all talked about on consent agenda today. But for me to speak to them, which I have comments on both of them, I would have had to ask you permission to speak to it. I’d have to ask if it was under items of direction. The only time the public, without asking permission from council to speak to you, currently, is if it’s a PPM.

You need to change that process, so that you can have a appropriate dialogue with your constituents on items that are on agendas. Consent agendas should be received and filed. That is not what those two items were. Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. Lovin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with some of the things that Mr. Wallace said in my day on council before consent agendas, but even after, there wasn’t a requirement to ask permission to speak on a consent item. So perhaps council wants to consider doing something different about the issue. It is restricting, and I agree with Mr.

Wallace on that point. I recognize you tend to, also you’re gonna get questions directed to staff after this input, but part of my response is related to questions that were raised during your staff report here, ‘cause I didn’t exactly read the same things in the report that I heard today from Mr. Adamma. So I’m wondering if it’s possible to get an answer before I continue, which is one on the lot coverage question.

If you’re removing the 40% lot coverage, does, is there 100% lot coverage? I mean, what happens? Secondly, do side yard requirements continue or not? Thirdly, I’m trying to understand as well the issue of if somebody takes a property, tears down what’s there, and rebuilds what’s the bedroom limitation if there is one.

And secondly, again, on the bedroom situation, I wasn’t sure I heard it correctly, but if there is an existing unit, there’s a bedroom limitation. Is there, or isn’t there a bedroom limitation then on the second unit, or the third unit for that matter? To me, it wasn’t clear. I thought I was clear when I read the report.

I’m not so clear after I heard the presentation. And part of the reason I’m asking the question, I’m here on behalf of my neighborhood association, the Orchard Park Sherwood Forest, and we’re near campus neighborhood, and we see substantial possible impacts of this, and are hopeful that the near campus areas would be treated perhaps differently, or managed differently through this process, so that it doesn’t come down to the near campus areas. I was relieved to see in your recent report, though, that additional secondary dwelling units haven’t really happened in the near campus area. So it’s a bit of a relief whether that’s gonna change going forward.

I’m not sure. I didn’t see any clear references to it in the report. So if I could get some answers, and then I’ll have a minute to finish. What I’ll do is I’ll present those questions when we’re finished the PPM to our staff.

So please continue on with any other concerns you might have, Mr. Levin. Those are really them. So I know there’s time between this committee and council on June 6th.

We’re having a AGM and barbecue at our community on June 1st. I’ve already invited staff from Mr. Adam’s office to talk about the rethink zoning, which will have some impact. This will also have an impact.

So I’m hopeful that he and his staff will bring information about this change as well. Thank you. - Yeah, thank you. Please, sir, go ahead.

Please state your name and address if you’d like and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and for the committee members. My name is Arnon Kaplanski.

I have been an Infill Developer in London for the last 35 years. London had failed to provide the needed housing due to the protection of the established neighbourhood. Unfortunately for London, the planning of the city was taken over by the urban league. The neighbourhood association turned into political movement to preserve the lifestyle of the existing population.

The planners become political puppets and the city went downhill to become one of the most unhappy cities in Canada. The city has been using the planning act to eliminate needed housing and has led us into a real housing crisis. I’m happy to see the track report makes some recommendation in the right direction. However, it does not go far enough to really allow developers, builders and homeowners to increase the supply properly.

Specifically, there was no recommendation to eliminate or increase the cap on the number of bedrooms. The limit act as a contradiction to the purpose for additional residential unit in the planning act changed to build 23. It does not make sense to maintain the same number of bedrooms as a single family home when three units is not a single family home. In the report, the reasoning to maintain this cap is to preserve the look of a single family home.

But this is what the zone is for. The zone control, the height, setback, coverage of the building on the lot, not the number of bedrooms. If additional units meets all the necessary criteria and can safely and properly fit more than five bedrooms within the three units, why not allow it? Restricting this is contradiction to solving the housing crisis and lack of problem and sense.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other persons that would like to address committee? Mr.

Zayfmann, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jared Zayfmann, CEO of the London Home Builders Association.

Certainly been chatting with staff for a number of months since Bill 23 came into effect. Specifically on this matter, so glad to see this coming to PEC and have the Biola officially changed. Certainly, it’s something to be coming into concert with with the province. I will say and kudos to London being a bit of a leader on this forefront, having established two additional units a number of years ago, but these changes, I think will make a significant impact from Bill 23, especially the ability, the size of units, two units in one building or potentially one in the main building and one in accessory dwelling will make a significant dent, I believe, in additional units we need in London.

As we talk about getting towards 47,000 new homes, whether we include these as one or half or however we count that, certainly over the last year, I know we saw at least a few hundred of these get built that got permits for, and so hopefully with working with the city, trying to Mr. Wallace’s point, try and make sure that the community is well aware of their ability at this point to add potential housing to their own home if they want to have parents age in place, if they have kids that are maybe at home longer, or potentially for your own rental units, because getting a home now is getting much more and more expensive, and so finding ways to mitigate that is gonna be really critical. So this will be really tremendous, I think, for the city, much more opportunity for affordability across the city, finding some of that gentle density that certainly people are looking for, and from our members being able to share that with general members of the public for advice, our renovator members certainly are looking and eager to get going on this, and as well, especially our new builders as well, finding a way to do that in a new build could certainly add a lot to anyone that’s getting into the market for the first time, so this will be really significant. I do wanna mention just specifically the five bedrooms.

Max, that’s something that’s come up a number of times from our members, from real estate groups, that that’s something that’s somewhat unique to London, and I am not sure, but it’s certainly possible maybe someone would challenge this at some point, but I know speaking, we hear a lot about the underground economy, and frankly, a lot of buildings now getting retrofitted and converted into much more than five bedroom units, which, especially as we get more larger families coming to London, multi-generational homes, I think there’s a reason to start looking at this again, and I understand staff has not changed at this point in time, but I think from many, many groups, we’re gonna start to seeing quite a shift and an ask for that as well. Thank you for the time, too. Thank you, are there anyone else, anyone else that would like to address the committee? Please ma’am, give us your name and address if you wish, and you have five minutes.

And I live in Braftale, near the university, and I live at Mayfair Drive, 34 Mayfair Drive. I’m currently the interim president of the Braftale Community Association, and I was interested to see Mr. Koplansky here, ‘cause we’ve locked horns before, and I think he’d be interested to know that I think people are coming around to the idea of intensification, they’re seeing the need for it, and I know there’s a housing crisis. I would, however, like to suggest that in the near-campus neighborhoods, as Mr.

Levin has said, that do need to be some extra controls. It’s very intense housing for only eight months of the year. It does cause a lot of problems, and it’s been the city’s pleasure to help out these neighborhoods in the past, and I would urge you to continue to do so. Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to address the committee, you only get one shot. Anyone online? I hear you, please give us your name, and you have five minutes. Awesome, and I’ll apologize in advance.

I’ve got a ton of allergies, so my voice is not the best tonight, but good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. It’s Kerri O’Brien on behalf of Drew Love Holdings and the Ironstone Building Company.

Back in October, our company started to look at modifying our available house plans to accommodate additional residential units within newly constructed single detached dwellings. Ironstone is now actively constructing and marketing those units, and we see the units as a great opportunity to quickly increase the housing supply within the city. The value added in revenue generated by the additional unit can help to improve the attainability of home ownership, and also offers an intergenerational option for families within our community. Over the last few months, we’ve been collaboratively working with staff to address some of the policy items that are making the construction of these units a little bit difficult, including the issuance of the associated building permits.

The report presented tonight addresses majority of the policy concerns that our team has raised, except for parking. So from a marketing perspective, especially in areas that aren’t serviced or are not well serviced by transit, sufficient parking is key to the success of these units. Currently, the zoning and streets by-law prevents additional driveway width from being added, specifically for small lot product. So we look forward to continuing to work with staff to find a solution for that item.

I will sort of end my comments with the fact that we continue to encounter some challenges with the issuance of permits for these units, but we appreciate staff’s willingness to work with us to address them, and we’re hopeful that future submissions will encounter less hurdles. So again, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Ms. O’Brien, any other people online, Burke?

Mehta. Please state your name, and you have five minutes. Yeah, this is Jerry, I bought a property on Bragg Hill. Right now, I’m working to convert the basement into the second unit.

The main concern is for me is the size for the bedroom or living room. You know, I found our standard for the bedroom, minimum size of 9.5, so this, or living room, we have a limitation size as well. So, you know, the house is old, and the size is cannot change because the foundation is not changeable. I just thinking, so if possible, like for example, remove that limit, for example, right now is 9.5 square meter is the minimum, but if the size is 9 meters, which is per current criteria, is not able to convert to the second unit, but if we remove the 9.5 square meter limit, then I think everything else are good.

So the only thing size is the problem for the older house. You know, I will see our city, we have a lot of older house. I will see if there’s a great potential to have the kind of converted the second unit. Yeah, like the basement converged to the second unit.

Yeah, that’s all for me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any others clerk that would like to address?

It’s through the chair. I’m not sure, Marie Bloch, which item did you want to speak to? It’s me, it’s Sam Trasso. He should be able to see me.

With apology, Sam, I thought it was Marie. Well, we share, we share devices sometimes, but it’s me. Any other folks that would like to address the committee from the public? Through the chair, there’s no one else online.

Okay, and I see no one else in chambers. So I will look to committee to close the PPM, Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 40-0.

Thank you, and there are a few questions that were raised by those addressing the committee, and I’ll go to staff right now with those questions. There’s one question regarding addressing committee on items on the consent agenda, and I’ll just maybe go to the clerk on this. Our public able to ask for a delegation to address committee regarding consent agenda items. Through the chair, yes.

The public is able to request delegation status. Thank you. I’ll go to staff, just a question of purpose built for new builds regarding the changes that these are brought in. How would that affect that type of build?

I get the intent is to go at existing units right now, but the question was for new builds. I’ll go to staff for that question. Through the chair, peer care course is going to speak to that ‘cause it, for the most part, it is very much related to the building code, so I’ll have to speak to that. Could I ask who’s ever online to mute themselves because we’re getting a lot of feedback here?

Thank you very much. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, the issue here at hand, I guess, is more flexible in terms of affecting how permits could be issued, for example, because it was more restrictive previously in the zoning by-law that was restricting the size of a dwelling unit. As you can see in the report, there’s no indication of dwelling unit limitation. That’s being proposed to be removed, and we go, we fall back to the building code that actually limits room sizes. So in terms of alignment, I would say things are favorable, and if I may, Mr.

Chair, with your permission, the gentleman had a question about the sizes and how that could be possibly changed. The building code, unlike the various by-laws we have, does not have a process for a minor variance application, for example, however, there are alternative solutions that any applicant can propose to the building division, and that could be considered. But in essence, those numbers are pretty much fixed. Thank you.

There was another question regarding lock coverage, moving from the 40%. Is that, when we remove that lock coverage, what’s the implication? Can they literally go to as big as they want, and a lot, 100%. Yeah, through the Chair, I’m happy to clarify that.

So the answer is no, it’s a separate regulation. So there’s within each zone, each residential zone, there’s a lot coverage requirement. Typically it’s around 30 to 40% maximum lock coverage. What I’m talking about here was a separate regulation that exists within the additional residential unit policies or regulations, I mean.

And what it requires is that any additional residential units are limited to 40% of the overall residential floor area on the lot. So the lock coverage requirement would remain separate from additional residential units that exist within the zone. What we’re proposing to remove is the 40% limit specific to additional residential units relative to the total residential floor area. Okay, so I just wanna be clear, I understand that.

So you have a house right now that’s on a lot that house takes up 35% of the lot size. And you wanna build a second unit. Can that second unit take up the remaining 65% of that lot size? No, the lot coverage applies to all buildings on the lot.

Okay, all right, thank you. What side yard implications are there included in this? Through the Chair, we’re not proposing any changes. So again, that would be based on the zone, whatever side lot requirements exist within the zone would continue to apply.

There are some questions regarding bedroom implications, but being there is no change to that. I’m not gonna get into that with my questioning. And the last thing I might know, I think I’m gonna leave it at that. I’ll leave it for Councilors to choose which questions they want to go ahead with.

Okay, so having said that, we’ve heard from the public and staff, so I’ll open the floor to committee members first and any visiting Councilors after committee members have had their chance to go. Deputy Mayor. So I do want to ask something related to the five bedroom limit, ‘cause I thought I understood it as well. And then I got a little confused because I see it in my neighborhood too with the, what I’m gonna call the cannibalization of single family homes into student rentals.

And you know, regardless of how many bedrooms are in the home, it’s often being rented out with a rental unit license. It’s often overpopulated for the bedrooms. So when we were talking about the five bedroom cap is what I’m hearing correct. So, and I’m gonna use my own home for as an example.

So I have a three bedroom home. I convert the basement into a secondary dwelling unit with one bedroom. So now I’m a four bedroom home. Then I decide for a third unit, I want to build an accessory structure.

Probably still less than 40% of my gross floor area ‘cause I don’t have that much lot. So I still got to respect the lot coverage. But am I then counting that bedroom in that unit towards my five? Or could I in theory still subdivide the basement into two bedrooms?

And now I have five bedrooms in the main dwelling unit and then the accessory dwelling unit has an additional bedroom or potentially even two bedrooms. And now I’m up to seven on the lot, spread over two buildings. So is that what we’re talking about allowing is that a five bedroom cap would remain on a single family dwelling unit home, but that five bedrooms would not apply to bedrooms in an accessory dwelling unit. Go to staff through the chair.

So in your example, the three bedrooms in the primary unit would count the one bedroom in the basement apartment would count and the one bedroom in the accessory building would count. So that would be your five total bedrooms on the lot and that would be the limit. You would need a minor variance or some other planning application in order to increase beyond that. Deputy Mayor.

Okay, so just to follow up on that then, there would be circumstances under which we would consider through a variance process or through another planning application where we might allow additional bedrooms, but that would be based on an application by application basis rather than a blanket policy. Go to staff through the chair, that’s correct. And it was intentionally put just in zoning and not in policy to allow for minor variances to take place to increase that count. Okay, that’s very helpful to me.

And so I’m pretty comfortable leaving the five bedroom cap in there for now knowing that there’s opportunities to move beyond that in certain circumstances, but I also think that we need to be, and I understand that the builder’s frustration with the fact that that’s a reality, but I think you’d be hard pressed in most cases to find a single family where greater than five bedrooms is required that wouldn’t get unapproval through a variance process because they’ve, you know, an excessive number of children or a multi-family generational situation where grandparents have come to be caregivers or that kind of thing. So, and yes, I know I caused some laughter there, but I do firmly believe that we should be not overpopulating the planet. So that’s always something that I’m aware of too. But I do think that there’s a saw off between protecting some neighborhood integrity and allowing in certain circumstances for that to be increased.

I was very interested to hear the comments about simplifying the building process or permit process for purpose-built homes with secondary dwelling units in them. I think that that’s really, really important. I know I will be, after we return from FCM, and I know Ms. O’Brien was on Zoom.

I know I’m gonna be touring such a purpose-built unit, a model unit when I return. I’m very interested to see that because I think that there’s particularly, as we think about multi-generational families, that we have an opportunity for a family to buy at home where grandparents, Granny Suite, is already separated from. But the homeowners can buy that, knowing that they’re going to have that rental income to help support the overall cost of the home, or that adult child is gonna continue to live in the basement or whatever the situation might be. So the more of those we can get purpose-built sooner.

I think it’s always better when they’re purpose-built than cannibalizing an existing building to try and make it fit and retrofitting in fire egress windows. And I know for my time on Committee of Adjustment, headroom height, particularly in basement units, comes up a lot, or in stairwells, where perhaps when you’re dealing with an older building, they just built them shorter, ‘cause people were shorter. And now we don’t have that six-five headroom height. So even though it might be very comfortable for the residents who’s living there, it might not fit code requirements.

So allowing some flexibility there, in terms of letting builders build these units, purpose-built right from day one, makes a lot of sense to me. And I hope that we can see some processes come forward that really simplifies that. So it’s a template process, and we can get those approvals and get those permits out the door. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Other comments or questions? Council Frank. Thank you. I also have a hypothetical that I was hoping to bounce off staff, so I could great understand this.

Hypothetically, if I was to buy a property that had a single family home on it, demolish it, and then build three townhouses on it with three bedrooms in each, would the same rules apply? ‘Cause then I have six, wait, no, three threes. Nine units on that lot. I’m just hoping, trying to understand, is it, does it apply, like, it’s units per bedroom unit?

No, bedrooms per lot. That’s what I’m trying to understand. I’ll go to staff with that question. Through the chair, and if I understand correctly, I mean, the first step would be to confirm, you know, zoning and lot size and whatnot for the three townhouses, but assuming that all of those regulations were met, this would allow two units in association with each of the townhouses.

I would note, so within near-campus neighborhoods, there’s a bedroom limit for a townhouse dwelling is three. So if you are within near-campus neighborhoods, it would have to be three one-bedroom units outside of near-campus neighborhoods, the limit would be five. But yeah, in theory, if it fits, it would be achievable. Councilor?

Thank you, yes, I find that very interesting, because that’s much more expensive to do. And I think that if we are trying to do mission intensity, which I came up as we’re talking about, which is what I think that we should be trying to do, I do see us wanting to try to convert, which is also a lower carbon emission perspective is re-adapting existing buildings. So I know that we’re not here to talk about the five bedroom requirement, but I am interested in hearing if that is gonna be up for review in the next while, given the community’s interest in changing that. Good stuff, through the chair, I would say that we are looking at different approaches to regulate residential intensity through the rethink zoning process.

So whether or not the five bedroom limit is the best approach, I think is on the table and up for a debate through that process. Our concern at this point with this change was that that limit was arrived at through specific analysis a number of years ago. And we felt like it wasn’t, because it’s separate from additional residential units, it wasn’t part of our notices or our engagement around this specific change. However, if through rethink zoning, we come up with alternate ways to limit or regulate appropriate forms of development that don’t include a bedroom limit, that’s certainly an option that we’ll look at.

Councilor, I’m sorry, Ms. McNally. Thank you, through you, the chair. If you’d like us to review the five bedroom unit, that’s something that we would need that direction.

Because it was, as Justin mentioned, that it was a review way back when, when we were looked at the near-campus neighborhood policies. And at that time, the five bedroom was the standard. There was more homes that just had maybe up to five bedrooms. The conditions may have changed.

And over time, we’ll see multi-generational and other situations that may warrant the change. And so we would need that comprehensive evaluation, which is, as Justin mentioned, separate to this review. Councilor. Thank you, yes.

I’d be very interested in receiving that information. So I’m wondering about crafting a motion on the floor, which never goes well for me. But I am interested in that information. Given things have changed, I think significantly in the last four years.

And we have a 47,000 unit target. And I think things are very different across the city, not to say there was some comments, I think, from the community that they would still like to see perhaps different application near-campus neighborhoods. But I know, at least in old South, there are some lots that are humongous and to only put a one bedroom unit at the back when we’re trying to increase density and walkability in our communities. And we want people to be able to walk within the neighborhoods that they already have to be able to reduce their emissions.

I personally am not in love with this current cap, given that we want to have greater infill and greater density. So I might leave it at that to try and see if there’s any other questions. And maybe I’m going to work on emotional while people are chatting. Any other comments or questions?

Councilor Chasau, please. Yes, I wasn’t actually going to say anything, but I think I need to say that removing the cap is something that’s going to require a lot of thought. And it’s going to be a different situation possibly in different neighborhoods. But one thing’s for sure, and I really want to correct the Councilor, whether there’s one bedroom or two bedrooms or three bedrooms, does not change the number of units.

And if our overall goal is increasing the number of units, certainly this is not the tool to do that because it’s irrelevant. And I’ll just leave it at that for now. Thank you, Councilor, Councilor Roman. Thank you.

Thank you for the report. I do have a number of questions. My first question to staff through you, Chair, is how are these additional residential units counted? So when we’re talking about our target of 47,000 units, I assume that if somebody puts in a basement unit and it’s a valid and legal unit, that it is counted as a separate unit.

But can we just receive confirmation? That’s how it’s counted. Good sort of staff and how was the definition of a unit at 47,000 units? So if this is specifically talking about the 47,000 units, which you wanted to clarify, I think that is what Councilor’s referring to.

We’re currently, we have a group established of the housing supply action plan reference group. And we are, this is one of the fundamental things. When are we going to start counting? What is a unit?

What is not a unit that we’ll be considering? I can tell you from just a preliminary perspective, it would very much likely be a unit, but that’s something that that group’s going to come back with some recommendations and how we develop targets, how we do our accounting as well moving forward. So there is a group that’s tasked with that. And that’s all that I have on that matter.

Councilor, Albert. Okay, thank you. I just, one I wanted to say, I did have the pleasure of touring Ironstone and Drew Lowe’s purpose built ADU or ARU today and was really quite encouraged to see this type of development and some key learnings, I think, that we have coming out of these type of purpose built developments. I just wanted to speak to the issue of parking, though.

You know, with this, with additional residential units and the challenge that we can run into when it comes to having adequate parking, what are stuff looking at right now to address some of these parking challenges that we’re seeing? I know in my ward in particular, we’ve seen a number of minor variances come through from parking and I do know we’ve had this circumstance where people go in and after they’ve bought a unit and now they’re ripping up their driveway trying to create additional parking without knowing that there’s a restriction there. So I’m just wondering what are our thoughts on if we’re going this direction, this is where the bill is taking us, how are we going to ensure that we have adequate parking? All those stuff on the parking implications of this.

Through the chair, so first of all, there’s no parking requirement for additional residential units. So again, there’s no requirement to add parking spaces if you want to add an additional residential unit to your dwelling. That said, I understand that there’s market demand for parking and in a lot of cases, that’s essential, but that would be subject to the regular or the current zoning requirements around parking space and location. And I’m not aware unless anyone else wants to add something about a review of that, but there’s nothing currently on my work plan to review that, Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, just to add, there isn’t a current assessment being undertaken for parking. However, if there’s legal parking occurring or any issues within a neighborhood, we do have our by-law folks and we have by-laws that handle those matters. We’re trying to both provide opportunities for housing, but also ensure that we’re not being overly prescriptive of what people have to have in these areas.

So this does open up for transit, all those other top-up opportunities that are not car-driven, but if there are concerns with parking specifically and people are legally parking, we do have our parking enforcement staff to be able to deal with those situations. Councillor Robin. Thank you. And I’m thinking particularly about these purpose-built units.

And I’m just wondering in areas like in parts of my ward where we lack transit, where there’s the possibility for these additional residential units, how will we address those parking challenges that we know will come up in the neighborhood? I do think it’s important that we look at that, whether it’s looking at our driveway widths and whether or not there’s anything that can be done in order to accommodate to vehicles in one space for an additional residential unit where we do not have transit handy. So outside of our transit corridors, just wondering how we could go about looking at that or addressing that issue. I’ll go to staff through the chair.

If that is something that Council would like us to consider or come back with some thoughts on, then we’d be happy to provide that. We would look for Council direction on that ‘cause it is something that we’ve considered in the past. So if it is something that looking at alternative driveway widths, we’d come back with a report on that if that’s something that is important. Councillor.

Thank you. My final question comment is around the funding and the financial piece of this. So one of the things that I see is this is another pathway to homeownership for a lot of folks. And I really do think, you know, Mike Wallace was correct.

We do need to do more in terms of educating the public about the opportunities with this, but also as Councillors, we need to be well equipped and consider how beneficial this can be for our community and another pathway to ownership that can be explored. So I just wanted to, again, talk, look at the permitting process. So from the permitting process as we’re trying to decide whether how we’re going to count these units, if these are going to count into the 47,000, the way that looks to increase our supply, is this permitting process something that is something that’s going to be very easy to navigate? Do we have any opportunities to educate the public on how to go about doing this, right?

So that we’re ensuring that one, we’re having compliance, but also that we’re presenting this opportunity to the public to really get, you know, involved in and understand that they can be a part of helping us solve this housing crisis that we’re in. So again, I’m just wondering, similar to what Mr. Wallace asked, how we’re going about looking at rolling out some communication on this? Can staff comment on communication out to the public?

Through the chair, absolutely. So one of the other groups that we have that’s part of that framework for additional housing is our customer service and process improvement groups. So at the last meeting, ADUs and a lot of other improvements were suggested by the development community. So we’ll have a series of different initiatives to try to make things easier for folks when they come through that process, both for the layperson and for the professionals that we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

As far as the actual public engagement and allowing people to have this information, we can take that back. That definitely is a very much a shared perspective. If we’re developing Housing Supply Action Plan and we want to be able to bring in additional units, then we need to be able to ensure that the community is aware of what’s available to them as well. So we’ll bring that back as part of the Housing Supply Action Plan as well.

Councillor. Thank you, that addresses all my questions. Thanks very much. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Chair. And I think you need to add Councillor Frank to your list, too, ‘cause she stuck her hand up the same time as I did. I just wanna follow up very briefly on something that Councillor Ramen touched on, which is the parking. And I’m gonna go back to my concerns earlier about single-family dwelling units being cannibalized into massive rental units.

We can hope, we can wish, we can plan as much as we want for all of those tenants to use transit or a cycle or walk. The reality is, intensification brings more cars with it. Hopefully much sooner than later, they will be electric cars, but cars come where people live. So I do think that it’s very important to review some of those parking necessities as well, because I see it in my own ward.

I saw it at a house that I visited yesterday that constituents request that by-law will be getting an email about. The backyard has become a de facto parking lot. Some gravel has been thrown down over grass, and that’s what’s functioning as a parking surface. Six cars were parked on street parking, taking up space in front of both that house and the neighbor’s house, including two commercial vehicles.

And it was a holiday weekend. So those commercial vehicles should have been parked at the office lot, not parked in front of a house. And so I think that we really do have to factor in those issues. I’m not saying which commercial vehicles, ‘cause that’s a matter for by-law to follow up on, but we have to recognize that those realities exist.

And those are often the most contentious issues in a neighborhood, because now you can’t get in and out of your own driveway to go to work in the morning. Or you come home and there’s cars parked on the neighbor’s front lawn, which is not the kind of thing we wanna see. Of course, we know that our parking enforcement is all complaint-based. So unless they happen to be in the neighborhood responding to another complaint and see it, they’re often un-responded to in a manner that matches up with when the infraction is happening.

So if you submit an email to parking enforcement and parking enforcement isn’t able to get there for 12 hours, the vehicle might be gone, the person’s off to work or whatever the situation is. So I don’t have a specific answer or direction because I’m sharing some thoughts here for your consideration, but it is an issue. And it often is the flashpoint for nimby reactions to infill, is that suddenly there’s this parking problem and that’s what gets people very upset. So just sharing that as thought for staff to take into consideration moving forward.

But I think that we can’t just hope and or even plan that they’re going to take transit or some other method of transportation because the cars are going to follow the people. Elsa Frank. Thank you. I do have a motion to put on the floor that the clerk has helped me draft.

So what I have right now is the civic administration be directed to undertake a review of the current five bedroom limit. And I do wanna say to some earlier comments, I personally want units with one bedrooms, but I also want units with two bedrooms, with three bedrooms, people of kids, people need roommates to make rent financially feasible. And we have enough one bedroom rooms coming from the development community right now. It is a great struggle to ask them to put two and three bedroom units into new builds.

So I think that we need units that have two and three, maybe even four bedrooms across the city. I also think that this current five bedroom cap is somewhat discriminatory towards specific populations, perhaps being on the younger range of council and recently graduating in the last decade. I think that overall people need places to live, whether they be students, seniors, people working, people on social assistance. And with this policy, I think that we are sending a signal that we think there’s specific populations that are terrible neighbors.

And I think that terrible neighbors are terrible neighbors. Whether you’re aged demographic background, if you own, if you rent. And I think that having a five bedroom cap across the city penalizes the entire city with this prejudice for one population. And I think that the beauty of being an elected official is that we don’t need to hope and we don’t need to wish.

We can just invest more money into transit and cycling instead of car specific infrastructure. And so by further developing infrastructure for cars, we perpetuate that people will have cars. It’s the, when people move to London, I’ve talked with many people, they don’t have a car when they move here. They move to London and they have to buy a car because we’ve created a city where you can only feasibly get around in a car.

And so we continue to buy and, or build more infrastructure for cars and not for people. So when people move into an apartment building, I have friends who moved into one downtown. There’s only one parking spot. They know that.

They have one car. They want to buy two. They can’t buy two because there’s one parking spot. They’re not allowed to have another parking spot.

So, you know, if people move into a unit and there’s one parking spot, they cannot have another parking spot. It’s not a responsibility to create parking spots in the city. It’s a responsibility to build more housing and to reduce our emissions. And so I think that we need the density in order to make transit work.

There is a tipping point I acknowledge, but if we keep building the car centric infrastructure, we will never dig ourselves out of this hole. So I think that I would really appreciate the support of other counselors if we could look at a directing staff to undertake a review of the five bedroom unit limit. Because I think that we need this density. We’ve talked about it a whole lot and we’ve talked a lot about apartment buildings and infill.

And I think this is just another tool in our toolbox for being able to increase our density so that we can have a transit system that services the needs of people across the city as well as have units for people to live in that are quite affordable. And I know I was probably a little bit harsh in some people’s opinions. So maybe that won’t win me the votes. I need all this one, but I want to try it out nonetheless because I think it is just to provide more information for us given that times have changed since the last review of the five bedroom limit.

Do you have a copy of that motion counselor? I have, well, yes, with the clerk. Clerk, maybe if you could read that motion out. See, the civic administration be directed to undertake a review of the current five bedroom limit.

Thank you, I do, you have a seconder for that motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds. Any conversation, questions, Deputy Mayor? Thank you.

I’m supportive of having staff undertake a review. I don’t want to predetermine what their return on that review may be. And if it’s a recommendation not to make any changes, I will probably lean towards supporting that as well, but I’m open to having the discussion. And so I’m willing to support that clause as well.

Now, unless the chair rules me out of order, I’m also going to suggest a clause D, and I’m going to apologize for the clerk, ‘cause I’m doing this a bit on the fly, and I try not to do that to her, but I would like to also direct staff to undertake a review of parking and driveway widths in additional residential units. Councillor, I’m gonna go back to you. Are you okay with putting those two together? ‘Cause I know your feelings are expressed on getting rid of cars, so— I don’t want to be a jerk, but I want to vote on that separately, please.

Okay, well, we’re gonna treat this separately. Okay, so we’re back to the original motion that’s on the floor that’s been seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any further comments on that? Go ahead.

Sorry, I just want to be clear. I wasn’t trying to attach that to Councillor Frank’s addition C, but actually create a clause D for a review of the parking and driveway widths in ARUs. And from there, certainly if people wish to vote on those separately, I have no concerns about that, but I think we should get a review of both of those policies. If we’re gonna review one, I’d like to review both.

Okay, so after we deal with Councillor Frank’s motion, then we’ll come to you on— Go ahead. So Chair, because we’re at committee and not at council, I think we can put both, because we haven’t passed the main motion, I think it can be altogether. I’ll leave that to the clerk’s wisdom, but I think we can add as many clauses as we want and then vote on it separately. Okay, I’m educated now.

So we’re adding your clause. We don’t have to vote on that to add it, and we’re gonna add your clause as well. And you would just repeat it for the clerk to— The clerk actually has some language up there, and I think the only thing that I need other than that language up there is a seconder for that. Okay, oh, sorry.

So the clerk has advised me that we will do the main motion, which is staff recommendation, adding councilor Frank’s additional motion. Once that’s been dealt with, then we will deal with your motion. It didn’t mean a separate motion. Whatever way the clerk wants to take it so that we vote on C and D and get them in there or not is fine with me.

Okay, so what I suggest is we do this. We will come back to your motion, but let’s deal with councilor Frank’s added clause. At this time, so I will look for anyone who wants to comment on that. Councilor Frank’s added plus the main motion, the staff recommendation.

I will just, if the committee allows my comments, I’ll support this review with caution, which I think the deputy mayor raised as well. I have seen instances of bedrooms being added and it has to deal with noise and parking in neighborhoods that aren’t dealt with or zoned for that and specifically near campus for sure, but now there is a city. I’ve had to deal with that as well. So I think there’s a lot of implications that come with that, but I recognize that we’re looking for ways to intensify and add housing.

And if this can be done, maybe through some other regulations, so be it, I’m willing to hear what staff have to say in the matter. There are no other comments. Councilor Frank. Thank you.

Yes, your comments sparked just a quick little comment. I just wanna remind peck members too that we regularly hear issues of noise and parking on any development application, whether it’s a new build or a retrofit. So I just wanna say that it’s common across any change to any neighborhood, and which is why I really appreciate your support on this. I understand.

Okay, any other comments or questions? Okay, so we have the main motion, which is to accept the staff’s recommendation added with an added clause by Councilor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote for it is zero.

Thank you, no, we will go to the Deputy Mayor’s motion to add, was it E, D, D. And I’ll look for a seconder for that motion. Councilor Hill here has seconded. Any comments or questions on that motion?

Then I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to one. Thank you. So I’ll move now to 3.5, which is regarding 327 Thompson Road.

We have the staff report, any questions? First, I’ll open the PPM one, look for a mover. Councilor Frank and seconder, I’ll second it. And I will call the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you. We have a staff recommendation in our agenda and our report. Any technical questions for staff at this point?

Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant. If the applicant is present, we’d like to address committee, online, Perk. Yes. I’ll open that meeting.

Thank you. Please state your name and you have five minutes. My name is Nick Dijak, I’m the Planning Consultant of Strict Volodymally Moniz. The owner of Michigan Against of the MBA group is also online today to answer questions if needed.

Generally, it’s our opinion. This application represents a good opportunity for infill development of a large vacant lot. We just had an interesting conversation about allowing additional residential units. This application represents two or a lot split, which is already received consent approval.

So we’re looking to split the lot and add two triplexes for a total of six units altogether. I know for the owner, it’s been a bit of a bumpy road being two years in the making of this project. So with this zoning approval, we’d be looking to get hopefully permitted for construction this fall and move this project forward. So we’re really happy to see a zoning application come forward to pack today with a positive staff recommendation.

We have no comments or additional concerns with the draft file or the information that was provided in your agenda today. So I’ll leave it at that, but of course not available for any questions, thanks. Thank you, I’ll go to any members of the public that would like to address the committee. Is there anyone online, Claire?

Through the chair, there’s no one online. Okay, seeing there’s no one else that would like to address the committee, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Frank and there’s made the motion. Councillor Hill, your second, so I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you, I will now open the item on the floor for our committee members, comments, questions, motions, Councillor Frank. I’ll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Thank you, we’ve got a motion.

I get a seconder, Councillor Hill here. Councillor Hill here has seconded the motion, further comments or questions, then I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you, we’ll now move on to 3.6, and this is regarding 4-4 to 6-4-6, you’re on street.

I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, we have the staff recommendation and their report, any technical questions for staff at this moment.

Seeing none, then I’ll look to the applicant, if the applicant would like to address the committee. Please go ahead, sir, you have five minutes. Is that better? Yeah.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Harry Frucio’s. I’m a planner with the Linka Prima Limited, and we are the authorized agents for the landowner for this application.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak to this evening on this application. We want to thank staff for their efforts in bringing forward a recommendation this evening. We don’t necessarily agree with the recommendation, we’ll speak to that momentarily. We did submit a letter for you to review.

It was on the added agenda, hopefully you got a chance to look at it and I’ll just touch upon briefly about the items that are of concern to this application. Three of the, there’s three or four things that we want to contest as part of this application, and one being the height and density of the project. We know that staff is recommending an alternative zoning bottle that would permit only six stories and 250 units per hectare where this application proposes seven stories and 250 units per hectare. Subject lands can sustain this type of intensification that’s being proposed as they are situated along an arterial road being here on street.

They’re among several different types of land uses and densities that offer multiple services and provide convenient access to these services for the people who will be tenants of this building. The abutting lands to the north have permissions right now to build up to 14 stories. So what we’re proposing in terms of seven stories is an appropriate transition to go to those that more higher density form to the north of these lands. And there’s no density cap in the London Plan as it relates to this property.

The additional units would provide, the additional story would provide the city with another 12 units that would help it achieve its goal of 47,000 units by 2031 on a site that can accommodate this type of development. Our client is also proposing to provide two affordable units at 80% average market rent. And that is in response to the city’s immediate need to provide these affordable type of units. Accepting the staff recommendation to allow for only six stories and 250 units per hectare would result in the loss of these 12 units, including the two affordable units in an area that can sustain this type of development.

And doesn’t necessarily establish a precedent considering that these lands are located abutting high residential, future high residential or high density residential lands. There’s also the requirement for a step back above the third or fourth story of two meters. And we, in our opinion, this design feature, it’s not consistent with the character of this area where you see different types of housing. You don’t necessarily see step backs in mid-rise buildings of this nature.

Careful consideration has gone into the design of this building in terms of the variation in materials, textures, colors, it fits well into the area and will set a positive standard for future development along this corridor. The required step back would also result in an inefficient building design internally, resulting in larger units that does not promote affordability. And lastly, the additional design enhancements that are being suggested by staff for consideration may also have a detrimental impact on our client’s ability to deliver this development with 82 units, thus impacting the financial viability of the project. And again, going against addressing the needs of the city to provide as many units as possible within these developments and still being an appropriate development.

Another matter that we’re concerned about is the side yard setback requirement for the units that have balconies and windows facing the setback. Our proposal was for five meters. Staff has asked for six meters. We’re talking about a difference of one meter here.

The problem is, is by delivering that six meters, we potentially again have to lose units because we can’t move the building further east without creating other issues in terms of standards. So the five meter setback, in our opinion, is suitable for its desired intent. And that’s to minimize impacts related to privacy and overlook. And it also provides a generous amount of landscaping along that east side or that west side yard because of the required setback.

On page three of the correspondence we provided, we’ve put a list of the items that we’d like to see in the amendment. And one of those is the landscape open space, which was lacking from the staff zoning amendment. We’ve asked for a landscape open space requirement of 29% whereas 30 is normally required. We’re going to do our best through site plan to achieve that 30%.

But based on the concept plan we have today, thank you, it does only allow for 29%. So we’re seeking for that 1% reduction, noting that there are several opportunities for landscaped open space and amenities around the area. So based on that, Mr. Chair, I will wrap up.

We believe that the proposal for seven stories and 250 units per hectare is appropriate for this property and look forward to your consideration of the matters brought forward in our correspondence. And I’m here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay, I’ll look to members of the public that would like to address the committee on this particular application.

Please state your name and you have five minutes. Yes, you’ll agree. I’m the owner of this property. I just wanna speak but the common sense approach in relation to this development.

When we look at the location and the area and we try to think 10, 20 years ahead, what is going to happen? Seven story will be and the 82 units will be too small for that area. Things are changing fast. I’ve been a developer of affordable housing for the last 23 years here in London.

All my developments were actually affordable housing under the Canada, Ontario, London program that is now non-existent. So unfortunately, it’s not possible for me to do 82 affordable units. And so there is the economic of it. In fact, 70 units is not gonna make it because as we move along, the economic conditions are changing.

And with 70 units, this development will be at a loss and therefore doesn’t make any sense. 82 units really cut it at the top. And so in fact, 94 units will be much better. And I think that this is a consideration that we have to make aside from the policies, aside from the zoning bylaws, trying to really understand what the needs and what we really appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other people from the public that would like to address committee regarding this application? Is there anyone online, Burke?

Through you, Chair, there’s no one online. Okay, seeing no others, I would like to speak. I’ll look for a motion to close BPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, 40-0. Thank you. I’ll put the item on the floor for committee members.

Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And with apologies to committee members, I know I’ve said this earlier in the meeting, but it was a long weekend. And I needed an opportunity to talk to the ward, Councillor.

But I did have an opportunity to meet with staff on Friday morning. And I’m going to be proposing an alternate motion. The clerk has entered the alternate motion in E-Scribe. I do want to just confirm with the clerk that she’s also got the alternate bylaw that I included in the attachment as well.

So again, all those staff’s recommendation stands. I did work with them to ensure that this alternate had correct language and was achieving the intent of what I was seeking. And really what this comes down to is allowing the seven story height rather than the six stories that staff are recommending. I also have a clause in there that directs the civic administration in consultation with the municipal housing development division for the provision of two or more affordable units to be undertaken as part of the site plan process.

There’s a couple of bullet points to that to work with the applicant on the provision of affordable housing units for the proposal with respect to the roadmap for 3,000 and to assist with our goals that way. The proposal from the applicant that they could include some affordable units did not come forward in time for staff to include that in their report. So I wanted to make sure that we did capture that in my alternate motion today. And I will just share that the alternate bylaw does in terms of the regulations set an interior side yard depth of five meters and does not regulate a step back in the building design.

So I think that that allows us to achieve the seven stories with the affordable housing provided in it and addresses the concern of the applicant about the unit configuration changing and therefore losing affordability because the units become bigger. So that is in eScribe. I have not consulted with committee members to see if there was a seconder for that because I did need to make sure that I consulted with the board counselor first and made sure that that was something that she could be supportive of as well and I’ll look for a seconder on that alternate motion now. Okay, I’ll ask committee members if they can see that motion.

Is there a seconder that Councilor Frank has a question? Thanks, I just want to ask a question before I hypothetically second. I’m just wondering giving the language. So this would not move forward unless for sure two units, affordable units were secured.

I just want to get confirmation because the wording of this sounds like consultation. I want to get it. For sure, yes, that it would not be able to be built without two units of affordable, at least two units. I’ll go to staff on that question.

Through you, Chair, as you know, that through the recent changes through the planning act, there’s nothing to compel the two affordable housing units to be built. It would be an understanding between the applicant and the municipal housing folks. Councilor. Thanks, I guess just a quick follow up for that.

Is there nothing that we can withhold that would then force compliance? Kind of like how we have some, I feel like we have some environmental things that we can withhold until compliance is met. So I’m just curious if there isn’t for here. Staff.

Through you, Chair, unless the municipal housing development group prepares some kind of letter of undertaking security, somehow some mechanism that then would be carried through the rest of the planning process, being site plan and such, there may be a mechanism, but we don’t have any formal procedures in place at this point. And it’s something that we are working with our municipal housing folks to undertake something. But at this point, we don’t have any mechanism. Councilor.

Thank you. Then is it possible if I could just go to the applicant to confirm verbally that they would be willing to have at least two units of affordable housing? I just, I’d like to see something on the record, maybe before voting on this. Okay.

Yeah, so I’ll go up to the applicant on this question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through yes, this the applicant is here and he’s committed to providing those two affordable units inside the development.

Thank you. Councilor. Thank you. I will second it then.

Okay. We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll open the floor for comments or questions before I call the vote. Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you and through the chair. I just want, I’m here to support this development. I have had zero resident concerns around this. In my ward, we’ve got a 10 story proposed for Oxford and Clemons and a 10 story proposed or coming in another spot along Oxford and an 18 story on Mornington.

And all of those are but small residential homes. And those residences do have some concerns and I’m working with them to help them embrace what’s needed in the city on major roads. In this case on Huron Street, there are no residences close by. I have tried to encourage the developer to do eight or maybe 10 stories.

I mean, we need homes. This is a beautiful location, walking distance to grocery stores, walking distance to large parks. I really ask this committee and council to support this development and to encourage builders, especially ones that have a proven history of supporting affordable housing in our city to encourage them and help them to provide the homes that are residents so desperately need. Especially in locations like this one, I’m at a loss truly to understand why we’re not doing everything that we can to put as many units on this location as possible.

I don’t understand the restrictions. And I’m here to fully support and to thank the developers and the landowners for building here. It’s gonna be a great location. A ward floor welcomes it wholly.

Any other comments or questions? Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. And just to follow up on that, I too would be willing to go up to eight if all the parking was underground and there are more affordable units.

So just putting a bug in some people’s ears for future applications. Councilor Stevenson. If I can just say to that, and I don’t know how much I’m at Liberty to say, but when this development first came to my attention, it was gonna be fully affordable units. And but for some lack of readiness on the federal government side, this could have been all affordable units.

So I think, you know, there may be the possibility that there’ll be more if some things work out over the next few months. Any other comments or questions? The committee will allow me, I’ll just comment from the chair. I’m very cautious to go, you know, to go against staff or recommendation.

They’re doing their job. They’re following guidelines set out by our official plan, which considerable work was done, both with staff and with the public. However, I said before, their official plan is a guideline and it’s because you can’t plan for every single circumstance. And that’s why we have this committee to kind of find the nuance.

In this particular case, it’s for one extra story. It’s not bordered by a single family residential neighborhood. So the impact is on the neighborhood is minimal, if anything. I don’t see any public opposition to this and I’ve got a ward counselor who is fully supportive.

So in this particular case, I will support the motion, but I will say that our staff are doing their job in using our official plan to kind of lead their recommendations. So I think we’re all doing our jobs here. And I just want to emphasize that to committee members and to public and to developers as well, that there is process and there’s reasons behind process. And that’s what we need to acknowledge today.

So if there any other further comments or questions, Councilor or Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Chair. I’ll be brief just through you. If you want to know how hard our staff work and how brave they are, they actually agreed to meet with me at 8.30 in the morning.

And you know what I’m like before I’ve had sufficient caffeine. So certainly this alternate recommendation does not take away from their hard work because they were willing to put up with me when I only had one coffee in me and that takes some real courage. Thank you for those comments ‘cause as I was pointing out to me earlier today, we’re all on the same page. We all recognize that housing is desperately needed in the city and we’re trying going about that in the proper and the right way to achieve that.

So I appreciate that. Seeing no further comments or questions, I will call the vote. Closing the phase four to zero. Thank you.

Moving on to 3.7, discussing 1,120, 1,126 Oxford Street East and two and six Cleven Street. So I’ll look to committee to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you. We have the staff recommendation and the report on our agenda. If there is any technical questions from committee members, I will look to that now.

Seeing none, I will ask if the applicant is here. I see a gentleman coming to the mic now. Please go ahead, sir. You say your name and you have five minutes.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Planning Committee. My name is Jersey Smallerick. I’m a partner at Civic Planning and Design Inc.

I am here representing Royal Premier Developments who are the owners and developers of this project. First off, wanted to acknowledge that we are in full agreement with planning staff recommendations before you this evening. We also want to thank planning staff for working diligently with us through this application, specifically Anushasing, Katherine Matton, Mike Corby and Breo Hagen, who have all been great help to get this application to the finish line. This project looks to implement the ultimate vision of the London Plan along Oxford Street in this location, which is within the urban quarter place type.

It’s an assembly of five lots and a portion of City Laneway that is requesting to be transformed into a 10-story, 131-unit apartment building that has been designed to be prominently located along Oxford Street. With the frontage along Oxford Street being a 10-story mass and then going down, transitioning towards the neighborhood to four stories into the more established neighborhood of the North. The greater majority of the parking for this project is underground. While some may, well to some, this project may seem out of place in its current context as it’s surrounded by single-family homes and single-story commercial, it does fully meet the intent of the planned context along Oxford Street, which will be a much more urban place in the future and has been identified as a corridor for intensification that will provide the much needed housing within the primary transit area along existing transit routes.

As you’ve hopefully seen, we’ve provided a project back sheet as part of the added agenda, which provides further details about the project and outlines the comprehensive community engagement program that we ran for this application. We’ll leave it at that. If there are any questions from the committee, I’d be happy to address and the developers here as well. If there are any questions, thank you.

Thank you. I’ll now look for any members of the public that would like to address committee on this particular application. Please, sir, go to the mic and let’s make sure you turn it on. Hello.

  • There we go. Please give your name and you have five minutes. Mr. Chair, my name’s Mark Toth and I live up 14 Clement Street, just on the north side.

I’m very nervous, I’m now a public speaker, I’m very uncomfortable. I just, I already feel like I’ve been shortchanged. My, I don’t want this to be included in my five minutes. I, I actually thought that I’d be like in a conference room on the third floor on like a big table and I, I planned a whole bunch of stuff.

I have like about like 15 minutes to speak. Oh, you have five, so. I can bring it, I can bring it down to five, but the first thing I’ve already feel like I’ve been shortchanged because in last November, I prepared, can you hear me? I can hear you fine.

Last November, I prepared three emails and I sent them to the planner at that time and I noticed in the appendix B of the planning department report to the committee that only two of those emails were included. I had that third email right here and it’s very critical and crucial to me into this plan because regarding a boundary tree in the tree assessment plan that was not included or treated as a boundary tree, boundary tree. And as you know, a boundary tree needs consent of both owners for it to be removed. Since I have not been approached regarding this tree and so I think it’s critical that we have a discussion because I’m not going to approve the, the removal of this tree.

So I have that email right here. I can drop it off to Vice Chair Lewis so you can have a look at it. But that should have been included in the appendix B and that should have been dealt with like way before now, right? So it’s painfully obvious I’m totally ignorant of the seizures and process involved here.

And so that’s just one concern. That’s the first concern I have. And actually I would like to go last because maybe some other people’s concerns will be covered by mine and I can trim down my, I think my initial input would probably take me about like 12 minutes. You have two and a half minutes, so this is the time.

I don’t, this is not enough time. I mean, first off that regarding that boundary tree, that needs to be rectified. I don’t think my five minutes should be used to rectify something that was missed by planning department. I think that’s a fair, I think that’s a fair request.

Well, you’re down to two minutes left. So what you can do, between now and council, you have time to send any correspondence you want. And I’ll ask about the boundary tree after your time’s up. So we’ll discuss that.

Okay, can I just start off with a fresh five minutes and well, I’ll have to really pare it down then, obviously. This 131 unit on three quarters of an acre, a third of a hectare, has a density of four 23 unit. Just the bottom five floors, just the bottom five, and I think that’s over intensification. Just the bottom five floors of this building is 81 units.

That is a intensification of 262, which is even above the Huron Street. At a context, there’s a development on railroad, just a stone throw away, it’s 40 units. So I’ll start off with my conclusion. New housing, I’m just gonna read this.

New housing is desperately needed, which meets needs intensification and infill are needed. The quickest formula and process to achieve new housing is reasonable, balanced, environmental, friendly proposals that will garner community buy-in. This will be, this will be with intensification, but if it’s reasonable and balanced, issues can be solved, managed, pre- and post-development with collaborative and pragmatic solutions. Intensification should and will complement enhanced neighborhoods.

Over intensification destroys neighborhoods. I know the provincial level of government is putting the squeeze on the municipal level of government with Bill 23. This housing shortage is legit, is legitimate, and in fact, is a crisis. Intensification and infill is absolutely necessary, and we are full citizens need to accept it in honor of commitment to solve it.

Unfortunately, the crisis is being used and manipulated by some developers. The development process at Oxford and Clements is just that. I have to call it, I see it. This current proposal is an outrageous and vulgar display of greed.

The request for seven special provisions should be viewed as red flags, indicating an unreasonable, unbalanced proposal, resulting in over intensification. If this proposal is as is accepted as is, it is the beginning of the end for this neighborhood and area of the city. I got so much more. Well, here, unfortunately, your time is up, sir.

I gave you an extra minute. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Is there any other persons that would like to, please go ahead, ma’am.

Hi there, thank you. Give us your name and you have five minutes. Sure, thanks very much for the ability to provide input. My name’s Donna Van Boxmer and I own property on 13 Mcnay Street, so I’m not directly, you know, really closely located but close enough.

I did also provide input when requested and I think I just really have two main concerns. And I would say I do understand the need for the Oxford Street and just that that corridor is such, but currently it is, this building is directly adjacent or a budding single family dwellings and it’s extremely large. I do recognize that there were some changes made to the plan, it went from a 136 unit building down to a 131 unit building and graduated at the north side, which is to the houses, but when you look at the shadow plan and the shadow that’s gonna be created on the single family dwelling, and I think December, it really tells the story. It goes for a number of houses and creates an inadequate sunlight to those homes for quite a long period of the day.

So I do recognize that there were some changes made. I would like to state that I don’t feel those changes were adequate for the current location today. So what it looks like today, so recognizing that 10 years from now, it might look different, but today it’s single family dwelling homes. And then my second one really speaks to Deputy Mayor Lewis’s comments as well about parking and parking there’s 0.5 spaces per unit allocated in this building.

And really there are 33 two bedroom units, which could easily with it being a near campus property have two students potentially that each have a car and there’s 0.5 of a parking space per unit, which would then make parking on the street. And there isn’t a two hour limit or anything on the street during the day. So parking on Clement Street. And again, not my property, but my neighborhood.

So make parking and the need for parking spaces inadequate in my opinion. I do recognize that the 0.5 parking spaces per unit is the minimum required and that that is going to be there, but I just feel that parking is going to be a nightmare. And there’s kids on Clement Street and cars parked on the street just decrease visibility, make traffic concerns and issue for myself. So those are my two main concerns with this proposal, but I would also state that the building does look beautiful.

I think the design of the building is gorgeous. I do like the way it layers down at the back. I just think that location in current day is not ideal for the residents that live in that neighborhood. Thank you very much for your comments.

So anyone else that would like to address the committee, I’ve been advised by the clerk, there’s no one online. I’ll look to anyone else. No, then I will look to committee for our motion to close the PPM, Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and I’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, forward to zero.

Thank you. Just staff regarding the comments made, our staff aware of a boundary tree that needs attention to our last staff to comment on that. Thank you through the chair. With that, I’m clause C4.

It does identify to the approval authority for matters for consideration, consent to remove any boundary tree. Trees is required prior to final site plan approval. And that consensual means also, it’s not only the tree bits, the roots as well. We wanna make sure that the roots aren’t impacted.

So that is a requirement that would have to be fulfilled. So if consent is not given, which I understand from the comments made, it will not be, I’m understanding that will not impede the project, it will just have to go ahead with that tree still there, is that correct? That’s correct. And mitigation measures, which could include additional setbacks so that those, the tree and the roots are not impacted.

Right, I understand. Thank you. Again, just a few more other points. The shadow impact can come in on the shadow impact.

I understand that with bill 23, shadow impact has been, I can’t, I don’t know if it was eliminated or if it’s been, it was definitely affected by bill 23. So staff comment on that. Chair, so a shadow study was submitted as part of this application and reviewed through the process based on the study provided. There’s limited impacts to the surrounding property.

Just in the winter months, there are those longer time periods given the lower sun, but outside of that, those are acceptable levels for the shadowing on the abutting properties. Thank you. And then the other point was regarding impact of the number of parking spaces provided. And on the side street coming off of Oxford with potential of residential residents using that side street for their own personal parking.

Can staff comment on that, please? Yeah, three, you Mr. Chair. The minimum parking requirement for an apartment building is 0.5 spaces per unit.

The applicant is meeting that minimum requirement. And so no relief is being sought to the current standard in the zoning by-law. So staff have no concerns with the proposed parking. Okay, thank you.

That’s it for the questions from the chair. I’ll open up the item to the committee members. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

I do have one follow-up question to the boundary tree. If consent is not given, which we understand it won’t be, will that mean that there’ll be less parking or less amenity space given the site plan design? Or was that something that I just would, I’d prefer to direct staff so that we’d lose above ground parking as opposed to amenity space if we’re trying to make decisions. So I’m trying to understand, I guess, what’s the hierarchy of decision making in that case?

I’ll go to staff on that question. Well, if we could refer that question through chair to the applicant, but typically in other scenarios, it could be mitigative measures that are additional setbacks that would reduce parking or other means depending on what the site layout is. So I will go to the applicant if, you know, the question’s been raised, if the tree in question, the boundary tree will not be permitted to be removed along with its root system, what are your plans to handle going ahead with this with that tree in place? Yeah, so once we get it through you, Mr.

Chair, once we get to the site plan detail design, we’d be looking at what trees exactly are impacted by the actual concept. So depending on what’s happening, either above ground or underground in a location nearby the tree, we’d have to make some design alterations through that process at the time. We have accounted for that in terms of our concept does actually show for more parking spaces than the 0.5, it’s 0.7 actually is what we’re showing, we’re just not asking for any relief to the parking numbers so that we could accommodate some of that surface parking that could be removed and put underground possibly if there’s the tree impact that becomes an impasse at the site plan stage. Okay, thank you, Councilor.

Thank you, yes, I’m not sure if this needs direction, I think I would like to iterate thoughts towards site plan approval that should this all play out, how it plays out, I would not like to lose green space given there’s not a lot of amenity space. And I do applaud the applicant for how much underground parking is already being included in this application ‘cause I really appreciate it, but I would just not like to lose amenity space or green space above ground. Okay, I just, just not want to comment on Councilor’s thoughts there regarding site plan. Thank you through the chair, that would be acceptable, we could certainly incorporate that as part of the direction to the site plan approval authority.

Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions? Councilor Stevenson, the next.

Thank you and through the chair. Thank you to staff for all their work on this one and to the developers and to the residents who’ve taken the time to come out. I am not limiting anybody to five minutes, so I’d like to speak with anybody that wants to talk later. We can see what we can do to make things the best that they can be.

I really empathize with the residents around these new developments. It’s a huge shock to that area. We don’t have any high rises in that area at all. And so it is a huge shock and so I’d like to support in any way that I can around that.

And at the same time, I do support the need for housing in the city and on such a main street. It does stand out right now, but there’s another 10-story coming and I think we’re gonna see a transformation along that strip. I think it’s gonna be about how we can make it a real win for the neighborhood as well. Like what can we do to make sure that it’s a great thing that happens?

Currently, what was there was not so great. I know when I was campaigning, it was really not a very nice corner. So I do agree it is a beautiful design. I do support it and I do really empathize with the residents and I will work with you the best that I can to ensure that maybe we can do something else in regards to parking or any of the other issues.

So I do support this and I just wanted to thank the developers and thank the residents and know that I will be in touch. Thank you, any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

I wanna share a couple of thoughts on this. I will echo Councillor Frank’s comments about the amount of underground parking. That’s always more desirable where it’s possible. I recognize that it’s not always possible and there are economies of scale on those things that mean you sometimes trade off affordability for that underground parking.

I do want to, because as the resident mentioned, I was talking about parking in the earlier additional residential unit piece. For me, the difference in the conversion of single family dwellings or the addition of an accessory dwelling on a property is a little bit different than a purpose built apartment because when apartment units are built, they’re advertised whether or not there’s a parking space or as we see with the single family home conversions, the postings often without residential unit licenses in place are ample parking available and then they just create their own parking out of otherwise functional green space on lawns. So it is a little bit different when the builder is purpose building and we heard it’s 0.7, although there might be some changes if there’s some sticking points because we do know that apartment dwellers do have a lower rate of car ownership and that’s sometimes reflected in seniors who are giving up their cars. It’s sometimes reflected in families that are only utilizing one car not two or not at all because they’re renting very close to their work.

I suspect that these apartments might be attractive, for example, to the folks working at Oxford and Highbury in some of the retail jobs that don’t pay a tremendously high wage so a car is not within their budget but if they can walk to work, maybe a little bit more on rent is an attractive option for them because they have those amenities nearby, the coffee shop, the grocery store and all those things that are not too far down Oxford Street for them and I do understand the community concerns about density and infill but Oxford is an arterial road and this is where the infill is going to happen, this is where we need it to happen and this is where to echo comments from a previous debate if we want people using transit, this is where it needs to be because the transit routes aren’t going to go into every neighborhood’s street, they are going to run along the arterial roads and if we are going to get past that last mile barrier that transit often presents to people, it is by putting dwelling units on a transit route so it is right outside their front door, so that is just some comments that I wanted to share and I am not aware of or I’m not saying this just because it’s another ward, I am experiencing these pushbacks in my own ward as well, we recently approved a neat story at Dundas and Bonaventure, there are a couple of additional heat story proposals that I think might work their way into a pre-consultant planning in the near future as a couple of builders have approached me and said hey, what are you thinking about an apartment building on this site and so I suspect that every ward in the city is going to be experiencing some of this, we all have arterial roads that run through our wards and that’s where we’re going to see the development happening, so I appreciate the residents coming out and expressing their concerns, you’ve heard Councillor Stevenson indicate she’s happy to hear from you further and work with you to address some of those, the pre is listed, the boundary trees are listed in conditions on this application, so I think that that issue’s been covered off, so I think that I can support this application based on what’s before us today, knowing that the applicant has indicated they’ll be open to some changes in site plan to make this work and we will see sooner than later something come forward here that will provide some more housing in the community. Thank you, any other comments or questions, looking for a mover or other direction from committee members, Councillor Frank. I’ll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Can I have a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds, any further conversation or questions before I call the vote?

Got a motion moved and seconded and I will call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for zero. Just recognizing that we’re already almost quarter seven, we’ve got one item left and then we’ve got confidential matters. I just want to make sure with committee members if we’re okay to just continue on without any breaks.

Okay, seeing that we’re good to go, let’s go. 3.8 and this is regarding 129 to 131 baseline road west. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis on call the vote.

I vote yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries for zero. Thank you, our recommendation and report in our agenda. Any technical questions for staff at this time?

Seeing none, then I will look to see if the applicant would like to address committee. You’re getting your work cut out for you today. (laughing) Please go ahead for five minutes. It’s all about efficiency, Mr.

Chair. Right. (laughing) Thank you once again, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Harry Frucio, this was the link in preammo. And we’re here this afternoon on behalf of Royal Premier Holmes, who’s the applicant and the proponent for this development at 129 to 131 baseline road west. Again, I want to thank staff for working with us. It’s been a good process.

I think we’ve made a lot of progress. We’re supporting, I mean, the recommendation principle, we support, but there are a number of matters that we’d like to see removed from the proposed zoning amendment. And we’ll get into that shortly. And we did submit a letter in advance of today’s meeting with outlining our concerns with the proposed zoning amendment.

I hope we’ve had a chance to review that. Before I get into the comments, I just want to outline some of the benefits of this proposal. This proposed development being 14 stories is consistent with the London Plan policies relating to height in this area. The majority of the parking spaces will be provided underground.

There is going to be a cap on the at-grade number of parking spaces, thus allowing us to have even more amenity or landscape space, and it would be typically required at this location. And our client is also committed to providing two electric charging stations for electric vehicles on the site, and we believe that those are all benefits to this application moving forward. The three areas that we’d like to see removed from the proposed zoning amendment, the first one is the step back. And this, again, is similar to my previous presentation to you on the application at Huron Street, is that a step back at this location, specifically in this location, is not really in terms of meeting the intent of the character of this area.

And in our submissions, we provided some photographs of the surrounding area and the type of buildings you see. And they’re all very similar in terms of being those straight type buildings with high density forms. But there are some mirrors of that type of design, and you’ll see with the application before you, with this design, and what was recently approved to doors to the east of us, that they are nicely done in terms of providing a variety of textures, materials and colors that provide a nice design for this site. And again, requiring a step back in this situation would result in building inefficiencies in terms of the interior layout providing for larger unit sizes, again, which does not promote affordability in these situations.

The second thing is the requirement for the main entrance to be facing baseline road. And in my opinion, these types of matters are not appropriately dealt with in a zoning by-law to regulate the location of doors and windows and those such things. Yes, based on the concept plan we provided, there is a door facing the street, and there’s also a second door facing the west where we have our accessible parking spaces. There’s no issue with doing that.

I just don’t believe it’s appropriate to put that kind of a regulation in a zoning by-law. And then lastly, and I believe probably the most important one of the three is the requirement for a holding provision, which relates to a drain that crosses the southeast corner of the property. It’s the last remaining segment of a drain that has already been enclosed on abutting properties. So there’s no need for an EIS to determine whether or not the drain will be open or closed.

That has already been taken care of through this process and it will be enclosed. Staff have confirmed that there’s no natural heritage or ecological issues related to this property. Our consultant MT provided correspondence with the opinion that enclosing the drain will have no detrimental impact on the fish habitat or on the natural heritage of the surrounding area. And as I’ve already noted, our client has agreed to cap the amount of accurate parking spaces, which will allow for 39% of the property to be utilized as landscaped or amenity open space, whereas only 30% is required by the zoning by-law.

This will undoubtedly allow for sufficient area to accommodate any compensation or enhance landscaping the vicinity of the drain to be enclosed. And to that, we’ve provided a conceptual enhanced landscape plan that was attached to the MT correspond and showing how this area of the site could be enhanced with landscaping. And in further details, we’ll be dealt with through the site plan process and through the section 28 UTRCA permit process, which we acknowledge that we have to undertake. So we’ve allowed sufficient time for the UTRCA to comment on the correspondence from MTE regarding this matter, and we have not heard back any response to date.

So we don’t believe it’s fair or even necessary to add an additional layer of approvals to this project. When I’ve already noted that we know we have to go through a section 28 permit process with the UTRCA to properly enclose the drain. So Mr. Chair, in closing, we’ve addressed the comments to the best of our abilities to date regarding this development.

We believe the proposal for a 14-story building with 176 residential units. Warn your consideration this evening based on the matters we brought forward in terms of excluding from the by-law. And we look forward to your consideration of this application. And I’m here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the committee? Please state your name and you have five minutes.

Yep. Yes, Mr. Chair. Resident of 135 baseline on the West, Chris Popewick.

The 14-story building with 174 units seems like it’s not a big deal there. There’s 10-story building, eight-story building. However, the density goes from current zoning of 150 units per hectare to over 300. So we doubling the density in that area, which will, I believe, have a significant impact on traffic on the on baseline road, especially going to work and going from work.

There’s multiple changes to the zoning that the applicant requires. Setback front, east, west, the height of the building and obviously the density of the building. I believe that the size of the development proposed for that site is significantly too big. It will impact negatively the privacy and living standard of people living at the new proposed site plus the two adjacent high rises.

Also, there will be significant loss of trees on both west and east side of the proposed site. Some of those are on the site and some of them, I know the residents of adjacent buildings have to agree on. I’m not sure if that was already approved or not approved to removing those trees that are on either on the borderline or on our property in some cases. So again, in closing, I think the number of zone changes required to allow this building and especially the density and the size of the building, that’s required.

I know they’ll take a look at the application. Thank you, sir. Is there any other, any other people that would like to address your committee from the public? So clerk, if there’s anyone online?

Through the chair, there’s no one online. Thank you. Seeing no one in the gallery wishing to speak, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Council are frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I don’t call the vote. Who, yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries for it. Thank you.

So I will go to the committee members now for comments or questions. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And through you, again, I appreciate the work that’s been done on this. I am very happy that there was more than the minimum required open green space, amenity space for the residents here. I think the addition of two EV charging stations is forward looking. Hope, just throwing it out there to the applicant.

Hope that you’re maybe future proofing that wiring to install more chargers in the future, as more tenants might be heading that direction. But I will say that I do concur with the applicant on the step back, really not being consistent with what we see in the neighborhood already, as well as, and I’ve said this on multiple applications. It’s not just this particular application. I recognize that step backs well from an urban designer or review panel perspective seem very attractive and they differentiate buildings.

They also have fairly considerable financial implications in terms of the affordability impacts, the reconfiguration of internal spaces in the building, what that means for unit sizes. And they’re not perhaps as helpful in attaining our goals as might have been originally envisioned in 2016 discussions in a pre-COVID pre-housing crisis. London Plan discussion. So I am going to be supporting the staff recommendation, but I’m going to be looking to make two changes to it.

I would like to delete the reference to the step back on the second, third, fourth floors. And I also am going to say I concur with the applicant. I would like to remove the holding provision for the ESI. ESI on the water course, because, as was stated, it is actually subject to a section 28 permit from upper temps.

And the redundancy of the doing the work twice and really paying for it twice, doesn’t help get shovels in the ground either. I’d much rather have this dealt with by upper temps through the section 28 process, rather than put it through an ESI. The applicant is correct. The water course is piped on either of the adjacent properties.

So I think to say that we can’t find a way to pipe it in a reasonable way here with upper temps through a section 28, I’m sure that both parties can come to a good understanding about how to do that properly without impact, having an environmental impact. And I did note in the staff report that there were not ecological concerns raised by our staff ecologists. So with those things being said, I’d like to move the staff recommendation, but I do want to make two changes, deleting the step back clause and deleting the age provision on the ESI. And I don’t have precise language for that if you wanted to, through you chair, confer with our planning staff to make sure that— Yeah, I was just about to get that done properly.

So we’re gonna need, personally need some time. And so she’s actually seen for a five minute recess while she confers with who she needs to compare with, and then we’ll continue on after that. So I’ll look for a motion to break for five minutes. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor.

And vote on that. Thank you. Okay, so we’re almost five to seven. We’ll come back at seven o’clock, thanks.

Okay, we’re at seven o’clock. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Thank you for that time delay. Well, we got our ducks in order.

So the clerk has language for the motion. If people could refresh their screens and look at his scribe, that language is there. So that motion has been made by Councilor Lewis. Councilor, are you satisfied with the wording?

That captures the intent of what I was asking for, so I’m happy with that. Okay, do I have a seconder for that motion? Councilor Hillier has seconded the motion. I’ll open the floor for our conversation.

Questions, comments? I, the committee will allow me to just proceed from the chair. I do have a question regarding the step backs. What is that important?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of a step back is really to create that kind of human scale, comfortable walking environment that can kind of also mitigate the wind, the shadow, and the overlook issues that set the context for low rise street wall. This is generally supported by our, as you know, our London plan, the city design policies, and our tools policies within the London plan as well.

So we actually do have policy related to this and requiring this as well. The special provisions for the reduced front yard allows for the development to achieve a larger footprint and more units than they are permitted under the base zone where the front yard setback is much larger actually, which is currently within the current zone, which the example next door was brought up, one that’s currently under construction. That development chose to build under the existing zoning that had no special provisions, no additional considerations from an urban design perspective, as well as from a general special provision. Those were not incorporated because they were just the base zone, which as we know is from our 92 by-law.

The reduced step back is therefore appropriate because the height impact is not directly at the street edge and is actually then step back. So it has a much better feel from a pedestrian perspective. As mentioned also previously, you know, the existing character of the area. A lot of those apartment buildings are actually from the 80s and 90s, which is again, not a time where urban design was really even a consideration as can be seen by the fact that these are apartment buildings within giant parking lots, which is not something that we’re looking to, I think, probably continue to promote.

And that’s really where the impetus or the thought processes for adding these step backs in basically is to change that sort of environment for the pedestrians and for the area. Thank you, so am I correct in saying that this essentially reduces that look of a wall of development going along a road? Is that correct? That’s absolutely correct.

That, through you, Mr. Chair, that is exactly what that step back would do. As part of this consideration as well, the original ask from the applicant was a four meter setback from the road edge for the development limit itself. And we’ve actually reduced that to two meters to allow for that slight projection, then for that first and second story, which the applicant has indicated that affects them in terms of the affordability of those units, when really all we’re looking for now is a projection on those two first floors, which can, I think, from a two meter perspective, probably be incorporated without changing the actual look of the building itself, so.

Okay, thank you. So just a comment from the Chair. I believe that we need to have good urban design, you know, as we build for the city that lasts for decades after we’re gone. So I intend to kind of support staff recommendation on this part here.

So I will look to separate part A, which I believe deals with step backs from the motion, so we can vote on that separately. So right now we’ve got a motion without part A on the floor that’s been moved and seconded in my correct clerk that we can proceed with that. Can you ask the mover and seconder if they’re okay with the amendment? I’ll ask the mover and seconder if you’re okay with putting part A as a separate motion.

I have no objection to that, Chair. Okay, and okay with the seconder, Councillor Hill here is okay with that. Okay, so let’s go ahead and move the motion, or that’s, well, I’ll open it for further questions or comments on the motion right now without part A, and then we will go to part A separately, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I have two questions.

One, I just would like to hear from the applicant, maybe perhaps on the differentiation between the two-meter projection versus the step back, and just to get a better understanding of if that is also what the understanding is of the applicant, that that would be a projection that wouldn’t impact the number of units, and then the second is, I just want to confirmation maybe from staff that this will go to a section 28, and therefore they will have to do the EIS monitoring as well. Okay, so I’ll go to the applicant first to advise us on the implications that would arise from not having that setback. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, it is that actual distinction that causes the internal changes that will result in those larger unit sizes.

Yes, there’s a two-meter setback that’s been put on the table by staff. We’re proposing four, so we’re still prepared to provide a four-meter setback based on the proposed building design, but again, it is that distinction, that two-meter section of the building that comes out two-meters that creates that inefficiency inside the building in terms of how the unit layout will look, and it does create those larger units that are not necessarily marketable in this area. Thank you. And go to staff on the second question from Council.

Three, Mr. Chair. Yes, section 28 permit is still required for that open water, excuse me, open water course on the site. It has been mentioned that it is enclosed for the most part within this area.

However, it is unenclosed to the south, along some properties along Commissioner’s Road just to clarify some of the comments that were made tonight. I’ll just add to that comment through Chair, that building permit would not be issued unless the section 28 permit was signed off. Councilor. Thank you, yes, no, that clarifies, what I was hoping to get clarity on.

And then if I could maybe just loop back to the applicant, is the reason why having the projection would make the bedroom sizes larger because you can have as many windows along a setback? I guess I’m trying to understand how having a, sorry, the projection from the building would make the bedroom units larger. I’m just trying to wrap my head around that. If you could advise us on the Councilor’s inquiry that would be right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I don’t have the design plans in front of me, unfortunately, but what happens is by bringing the building, I mean, we’re trying to create a uniform sort of layout inside the building, by bringing that projection out, it causes a bit of an issue with distributing those layouts inside the building. And that’s why for those two stories, or whatever the projection would be, those units along the front would be extra large based on the rest of the layouts inside the building.

By having that jettled, let’s call it. Councilor. Thank you, yes, I do not know enough about buildings at all to understand how that works. So I will take your word for it.

Okay, any other comments or questions? Deputy Mayor. Thank you, and through you, Chair, I’m going to encourage colleagues to support both of these amendments. I think when you think about things like the step back, you also have to take into consideration that the landscaped open space on this property is 40%, not 30%.

You could put yourself in a situation where the applicant decides they can’t build this efficiently with step back, so you might come back with a design where you have 35 or only 30% landscape open space and less amenity space, or perhaps a situation where the underground parking becomes surface parking because they have to change their marketing strategy to address the fact that there are now off-size units to the rest of it, and those are going to be more expensive. So now we’ve got to add some extra parkings to meet a higher parking ratio, expecting that perhaps those tenants might need additional vehicles. So there are trade-offs to these decisions. I think that that’s something everybody on planning committee is aware of as we work through various applications, but I think in this particular instance, the applicant has been very generous with the open space.

They’ve been really, really excellent in terms of their underground parking provisions and the inclusion of the EV charging stations. At some point, and all of us have to weigh this decision for ourselves, but at some point on these decision points, we have to weigh in the balance of what is enough to move us forward because the reality is, this should be a bit of a give and take because we’re never necessarily going to get everything we want, especially if we want to continue to see projects advance more quickly because once designs are in place and finance is in place, if that has to be backtracked, then we are going to see delays in terms of things moving forward. And we might end up with a situation where the status quo remains on that property for years to come. Well, things go back to the drawing board.

So I hope the colleagues will support these two amendments. I think that they’re relatively minor. And I think that when it comes to design and the PPS, while I do not disagree that some of those buildings are older age, I think you also have to look at the rental market in that neighborhood and what it will actually reasonably support and some of the newer approvals are still consistent with that look. They’re not seeing step backs in some of the new approvals.

So I think that on the whole, these are pretty reasonable. And I hope the committee supports both of them. Any other comments or questions? So we got a motion on everything except part A, that’s been moved and seconded.

So I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, I’ll look to the deputy mayor if you would make another motion regarding part A. I’ll look for a seconder on that as well.

Yeah, I’m happy to make that motion consistent with the earlier. Can I get a seconder for Council Hillier as seconded to any conversation on that for I call the vote? So I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion passes three to one.

Okay, thank you. That concludes our scheduled items. We have no items for direction. No one see any deferred matters or additional business.

We have one confidential item. So I’ll look for a motion to go in camera. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call that vote.

Chair, just before you call that vote. Sorry, Deputy Mayor. I know our staff are leaving. I just wanted to extend our thanks.

I’m gonna just extend as additional business. In the consent agenda, we had the Fairmont Public School property. Councillor McAllister is the word, Councillor. He is, of course, away on his honeymoon.

But he did want to ask me to please express on his behalf that he’s very supportive of the staff report and looks forward to seeing the potential redevelopment of this site into housing and some park space. And I’ve shared with him the designs for 1958 Duluth Crescent. So hopefully there’s some opportunity to see something similar like that come forward on the Fairmont site if we’re able to acquire that property. But I was remiss earlier in not sharing that I did have a text from Councillor McAllister asking that I express his support for the staff report on that.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor for sharing that. And now for the planning committee, we wish Councillor McAllister many years of wedded bliss. So now we will look to raise the room for our in-camera. ‘Cause we did not actually make a vote on it.

So the opening of the vote is now open to going camera. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to zero to go in camera for the reason listed on the agenda. Thank you, we’re back out of closed session and I’ll ask the Deputy Mayor to report out. Thank you, Chair.

As always, Chair, I’m happy to report out that on item 6.1, confidential item on client solicitor privilege device regarding potential litigation, progress was made. Thank you. No other items on the agenda. I will offer a motion to adjourn.

Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Frank, all in favor, and we are adjourned. Thank you, folks.