July 17, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:03 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Items 2.1 to 2.5, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   7th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-06-15 ECAC Report 7

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 15, 2023:

a)  the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 1176 Crumlin Sideroad BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration consideration;

b)  the the Working Group comments relating to Kensington Bridge BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)  the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide the Ecological Community Advisory Committee (ECAC) with the existing definitions of the OS4 and OS5 Zones as these zones relate to environmentally significant areas when the staff presentation is to be heard; it being noted that the Notice of Planning Application dated June 5, 2023, relating to the Notice of Application - ReThink Zoning, was received; it being further noted that the Civic Administration will provide a presentation on this matter at a future ECAC meeting;

d)  the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to send a communication to S. Miklosi indicating that attendance has been an issue and that, unless the City Clerk is provided a reason for the extended absence, the Ecological Community Advisory Committee will be asking the Planning and Environment Committee to rescind the appointment; and,

e)  clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1 to 5.3, inclusive and clause 5.5 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan - Draft Preferred Land Use Plan

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (2.2) Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan - Full

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to draft Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to commence a public engagement process to gather further community and partner feedback;

it being noted that the feedback received through this consultation process, and the outcome of supporting studies will inform the Final Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan and implementing an Official Plan Amendment that will be prepared for the consideration and approval at future Planning and Environment Committee and Council meetings; and,

b)    the draft Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2032-D05)

Motion Passed

2.3   Proposed Amendments to the Business Improvement Area By-laws

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (2.3) Proposed Amendments to the Business Improvement Area By-laws - Full

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to proposed amendments to the existing Business Improvement Area by-laws:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. A.-6873-292, Argyle Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. CP-2, The London Downtown Business Association Improvement Area By-law;

c) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1528-486, A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purposes of managing the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area;

d) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1519(a)-11, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law; and,

e) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend By-law No. CP-1, Old East Village Business Improvement Area By-law;

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-C01)

Motion Passed

2.4   Application for Exemption from Part Lot Control - 1525 Chickadee Trail

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (2.4) 1525 Chickadee Trail (P-9620)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the application by Jaime Crncich (2555212 Ontario Ltd. o/a Magnus Homes), for lands located at 1525 Chickadee Trail, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to exempt part of Block 70 Registered Plan 33M-814, more particularly described as Parts 1 to 12, inclusive, on Plan 33R-21649, from the Part Lot Control provisions of subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, for a period not to exceed three (3) years;

it being noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D25)

Motion Passed

2.5   Building Division Monthly Report - April, 2023

2023-07-17 Staff Report Building Division Monthly Report - April

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of April, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Request to Remove the Properties at 2 & 3 Kennon Place from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.1) 2 and 3 Kennon Place - Request to Remove from Cultural Heritage Register - Full

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the properties located at 2 Kennon Place and 3 Kennon Place BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.2023-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.2   Request to Remove the Property at 689 Hamilton Road from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.2) 689 Hamilton Road - Request to Remove Property Cultural Heritage Register - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property located at 689 Hamilton Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Resources;

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

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the property located at 689 Hamilton Road BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Resources;

 

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

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-R01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1474 Kilally Road (Z-9605)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.3) 1474 Kilally Road (Z-9605)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1216571 Ontario Incorporated, relating to the property located at 1474 Kilally Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-4(_)) Zone; and,

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

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

ii)    recommendations of the Geotech analysis toe of slope and top of slope be implemented through the Site Plan Approval process; and,

iii)    ensure enhanced tree planting is provided;

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

  •    the Project Summary from J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

 

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

  •    J. Smolarek, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a broader range and mix of housing options within the area; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   165-167 Egerton Street (Z-9608)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.4) 165-167 Egerton Street (Z-9608)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Elgin Contracting & Restoration, relating to the properties located at 165-167 Egerton Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-5(_)) Zone; and,

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

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

ii)    fencing and/or landscaping be provided along the perimeter of the site to ensure adequate buffering is maintained between the subject lands and adjacent properties;

iii)    details surrounding garbage storage and collection be finalized;

iv)    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,

v)    staff be directed to discuss short-term bicycle parking;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   

(2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   146 Exeter Road (39T-22502)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.5) 146 Exeter Road (39T-22502)

Moved by S. Lewis

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 1103125 Ontario Inc., relating to the lands located at 146 Exeter Road (Richardson North Subdivision):

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR6) Zone and Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision R1 (hh-100R1-13(7)), Holding Residential Special Provision R4 (hh-100h-198R4-4(2)), Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R6 (hh-100h-198*R5-4(  )/R6-5(  )), Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision/ Arterial Commercial Special Provision  h/RSC1/RSC2(  )/RSC3(16)/RSC4(14)/RSC5(16)/(AC4(  )), Open Space (OS1), Open Space (OS5), Open Space Special Provision (OS5(   )) and Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised through the application review process for the property located at 146 Exeter Road:

i)    concerns with the single-family home sprawl as that area as has 20% fewer units than the medium density area but takes up nearly twice as much space;

ii)    believing this is an inefficient use of space;

iii)    indicating that sprawl incentivizes driving and disincentivizes active and public transit;

iv)    believing that sprawl costs the City more money to maintain and service;

v)    indicating that sprawl is financially unsustainable;

vi)    indicating that the staff report indicates that green space is provided as the focal point and central gathering area; noting there are two greenspaces at opposite ends;

vii)    advising that the greenspace at the top is Open Space 5 where a park cannot be established and the Open Space 1 greenspace is down near the single family homes where there are backyards;

viii)    stating that there is a park in the neigbouring community which is good for anyone who does not have to cross Bradley Avenue; noting that the residents in the medium density area who want to go to a park with a playground will have to cross four lanes of traffic;

ix)    pointing out that the nearest higher priced grocery store is a twenty-two-to-twenty-seven-minute walk and the nearest budget grocery store is a thirty-one to thirty-seven minute walk along Wonderland Road;

x)    wondering what indoor bicycle parking will be provided for the medium density units who do not own garages; noting that they have lived in a building without proper bicycle storage and it is a very big disincentive to try to bicycle anywhere;

xi)    providing bike paths is great but consideration needs to be given to where people can store their bikes when at home;

xii)    believing that if the single-family units were to be replaced with more dense options such as townhouses, three storey walk ups, mixed use buildings, it would increase the number of homes in this area;

xiii)    requesting a review of the major road alignment; and,

xiv)    indicating that there is not a central gathering point in the development and if the development was denser, there could be a gathering space in the middle of the development;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by 1103125 Ontario Inc., (File No. 39T-22502), prepared by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Project No. 20-20801, dated May 18, 2022, which shows 307 single detached lots; sixteen (16) low density townhouse blocks, four (4) medium density residential blocks; one (1) commercial block; (2) open space/drainage blocks; twelve (12) road widening and reserve blocks, serviced by six (6) new local streets (Street Q, R, S, T, U and V), SUBJECT TO the conditions appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “B”;

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

  •    J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; and,

  •    J. Lalonde;

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

  •    the proposed amendments and plan are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents;

  •    the proposed zoning amendments conform to The London Plan and the Southwest Area Plan;

  •    the related plan of subdivision, under review by the Approval Authority, supports a broad range of low and medium density residential development opportunities within the site including more intensive, mid-rise apartments and townhouses along the Bradley Avenue West corridor and commercial/industrial uses along Wharncliffe Road South.  The red-lined Draft Plan has been designed to support these uses and to achieve a visually pleasing development that is pedestrian friendly, transit supportive and accessible to the surrounding community; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-D14)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve the Residential R1 Special Provision R1 (R1-13(7)) in part a)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, pursuant to section 35.8 of the Council Procedure By-law, the reconsideration of the motion related to the approval of the R1 Special Provision BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve the Residential R1 Special Provision R1 (R1-13(7)) in part a)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve the remainder of the clauses, parts b) and c).

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   725, 729, 735, 737 Dundas Street, 389, 391, 393 Hewitt Street, a portion of 700 King Street, 400 Lyle Street and Other Properties (SPA22-057)

2023-07-17 - Stafgf Report - (3.6) Dundas Street, Hewitt Street, King Street, Lyle Street (SPA22-057)

Moved by A. Hopkins

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 East Village Holdings Limited, relating to the property located at 725-735 Dundas Street, 389-393 Hewitt Street, a portion of 700 King Street, 400 Lyle Street and other properties:

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a mixed-use, 24-storey apartment building:

i)    enquiring about the Unity Project access to the garbage which is historically and grandfathered into the previous development agreement for the site;

ii)    wondering where the Unity Project access door is located; is it possible to keep the access door where it is currently located;

iii)    enquiring whether or not the Unity Project will have access to the driveway during construction;

iv)    requesting the removal of the non-conforming use parking lot and the inclusion of the pedestrian walkway that appears in Appendix “A” in section 4.2;

v)    wondering what assurances city staff can provide that the parking lot removal and the pedestrian walkway development will be done in this phase of the development;

vi)    advising that the current garbage location is not secured and personal garbage and large furniture is strewn around the site;

vii)    asking if staff can explain if the existing system noted in 4.3 will still be used once this new building is rented and more clearly outline where additional garbage will be stored and managed;

viii)    requesting that the issues that have already been identified in the staff report are dealt with at the same time as the current process;

ix)    advising that there is limited greenspace in the area and wondering if more trees can be planted as a number have been removed to facilitate rapid transit; and,

x)    wondering if commercial development will be occurring on Hewitt Street; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council does not have any issues with respect to the Site Plan Application, and that the Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

  •    A. Brown, Stantec Consulting; 

  •    S. Langer, Unity Project;

  •    J. Pastorius, Old East Village Business Improvement Area;

  •    F. Felice;

  •    S. Merritt;

  •    AM Valastro; and,

  •    Y. Somalingam;

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

  •    the proposed Site Plan is consistent with the PPS 2020, which directs growth to settlement areas and enhancing main streets;

  •    the proposed Site Plan conforms to The London Plan, and the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan including, but not limited to the policies of the Old East Village Core and King Street Character Areas;

  •    the proposed Site Plan complies with the regulations of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law;

  •    the proposed Site Plan meets the requirements of the Site Plan Control Area By-law; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.    (2023-D04/D02)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.7   159 Clarke Road and 1900 and 1902 Trafalgar Street (Z-9604)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - 159 Clarke Road and 1900-1902 Trafalgar Street (Z-9604)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 2323225 Ontario Inc. c/o Candevcon Limited, relating to the property located at 1900-1902 Trafalgar Street and 159 Clarke Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) and Convenience Commercial (CC3) Zone, TO a Special Provision Neighbourhood Shopping Area (NSA3(_)) Zone; and,

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

i)    fencing and/or landscaping be provided along the perimeter of the site to ensure adequate buffering maintained between the subject lands and adjacent residential properties; and,

ii)    reduce parking to provide space for outdoor amenity areas at the rear of the building, as well to incorporate landscape islands, drive aisles and to facilitate on-site maneuvering;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   38 Exeter Road (Z-9582)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.8) 38 Exeter Road (Z-9582)

Moved by A. Hopkins

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 Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., on behalf of 13709159 Canada Inc. (c/o Dr. Raj Khanuja), relating to the property located at 38 Exeter Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial (h-17*RSC1/RSC4) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (NSA4(  )) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

 

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

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages long-term economic prosperity to be supported by promoting opportunities for economic development and community investment-readiness (1.7.1.(a));

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor policies in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP);

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a vacant site with a within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of development; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   46 Elmwood Place (Z-9583)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.9) 46 Elmwood Avenue West ( Z-9583)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Zelinka Priamo Ltd on behalf of Veranda Property Investments Inc., relating to the property located at 46 Elmwood Place:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Facility (CF3) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(*)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure the minimum standards for the site plan control by-laws are addressed regarding, walkways and fire route design;

ii)    ensure that there is an adequate amount of amenity space for the anticipated number of residents;

iii)    provide easily accessible temporary bicycle parking facilities on-site;

iv)    incorporate landscape areas for screening, visual amenity, and to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect throughout the parking lot; and,

v)    provide an Environmental Management Plan to address protection of the Coves ESA, Restoration Plan for the area of parking lot removal and installation of chain link fence to prevent encroachment into the ESA; and,

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    M. Balch;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site with a vacant building within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   599-601 Richmond Street (Z-9607)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (3.10) 599-601 Richmond Street (Z-9607)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 599-601 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision Bonus Zone (BDC(1)*B-87) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone; and,

b)    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 housing options;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2023, from C. Butler;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023, from l. Meddoui President, Westdell Development; and,

  •    a communication from A.M. Valastro;

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

  •    M. Poddar, Westdell Development Corporation; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro, North Talbot Community Association;

  •    P. Cullimore; and,

  •    G. Mitsis;

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

  •    consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; 

  •    conforms to the in-force policies of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, including, but not limited to the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type, City Building Policies, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies in the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016;

  •    facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of new development; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Comprehensive Review of The London Plan Update (O-9595)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (4.1) Update on Comprehensive Review of the London Plan (O-9595)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to close the Section 26 Comprehensive Review file;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue work related to the Land Needs Assessment background analysis to inform future recommendations related to housing and non-residential demand and the supply of developable lands;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to circulate the staff report dated July 17, 2023 to interested parties for consideration of potential conversion of employment lands from an Industrial Place Type to another Urban Place Type in The London Plan; and,

d)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that a revised Terms of Reference for the amendment application to review The London Plan will be presented to a future meeting of Council, following Provincial approval of a new Provincial Planning Statement policy framework;

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

  •    the staff presentation;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 12, 2023, from M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023, from J. Fleming, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of 1803299 Ontario Inc.;

  •    a communication dated July 10, 2023, from S. Copp, Copp Realty Corp.;

  •    a communication from A. Soufan, York Developments;

  •    a communication from C. Brekelmans, C-Cubed Holdings; and,

  •    a communication from J. Fleming, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of C.-Cubed Holdings;

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2023-C08)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve the request for delegation status from M. Wallace with respect to the update on the Comprehensive Review of The London Plan.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   221 Queens Avenue - Temporary Zoning By-law Amendment (TZ-9598)

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (2.6) 221 Queens Avenue - Temp Zoning By-law Amendment (TZ-9598)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development and on the direction of Planning and Environment Committee, based on the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 221 Queens Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), by extending the Temporary Use (T-69) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years;

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

  •    the revised staff report;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 13, 2023, from A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited; and,

  •    the draft conceptual landscape enhancement plan;

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

  •    that in the opinion of Council, the recommended amendment is in conformity with the in-force policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Temporary Use Provisions policies contained in Our Tools;

  •    the request to extend the temporary zone for a period of three (3) years, representing the maximum extension permitted. If upon expiration of the Temporary (T-69) Zone, there must be an enhanced landscaped plan incorporated with the next extension application. The owner is advised that no extensions to the Temporary (T-69) Zone shall be granted without the submission of an enhanced landscaped plan; and,

it being also noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve the request for delegation status from A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited, with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to 221 Queens Avenue.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.3   39 Carfrae Street - Application Pursuant to Heritage Easement Agreement

2023-07-17 - Staff Report - (4.2) 39 Carfrae Street - Application Pursuant to Heritage Easement Agreement - Full

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application pursuant to the Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37, Ontario Heritage Act, for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding concerns with Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” of the Heritage Easement Agreement and bring back an update within 6 months on the status; it being noted that staff are directed to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from Council on the Heritage Easement Agreement; and,

b)    the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composit material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED;

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

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 8, 2023 from J. Gard;

  •    The Ontario Cottage Tour, October 1, 2000;

  •    a communication from B.L. Hiddleston, Hon. Archivist and Historian to The Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust relating to the Thistle Finial;

  •    Carfrae Notes dated October 4, 1987;

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 13, 2023, from G. Hodder;

  •    a communication dated July 13, 2023 from W. Kinghorn, President, ACO London Region Branch; and,

  •    a request for delegation status dated July 14, 2023 from J.H. Beck; and,

it being further noted that any and all oral and written submissions from the public related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2023-R01)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve the request for delegation status from J. Gard, G. Hodder and H. Beck with respect to the application by J. Gard relating to the property located at 39 Carfrae Street.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion BE AMENDED to include the following, as a new part b)

b)  that the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composit material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve part a) of the amended motion as follows:

A)  Motion to direct staff to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding concerns with Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” of the Heritage Easement Agreement, and bring back an update within 6 months on the status. It being noted that staff are directed to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from Council on the Heritage Easement Agreement.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve part b) of the amended motion as follows:

b)  that the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composit material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 8th Report of the Community Advisory on Planning

2023-07-12 CACP Report 8

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on July 12, 2023:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Notice of Application, dated June 14, 2023, from S. Wise, Senior Planner, with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to the property located at 50 King Street and 399 Ridout Street North:

i)    a Working Group BE CREATED to review the above-noted Application and the Heritage Impact Assessment Phase II, dated March 10, 2023, from York Developments, and report back to the August meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP); and,

ii)    the applicant for this matter BE INVITED to the August meeting of the CACP for a discussion related to this application;  it being noted that the above-noted Notice of Application and Heritage Impact Assessment Phase II, were received with respect to this matter;

b)  clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, inclusive, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.4, inclusive, and 6.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 9:28 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 (5 hours, 28 minutes)

give one more minute and I’m very lenient. Good afternoon it’s 403 I’d like to get the 12th meeting of the Planning Environment Committee underway. Please check the City website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the City website.

The City of London is situated on traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, and then at Paywalk and Adawatran. 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 City of London we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting please contact PEC at London.ca or 519-661-249 extension 2425. At this time I’ll ask for any disclosures of Pecuniary interest. Seeing done and I’ll move to the consent items.

Are there any items that committee members would like to call? Seeing none then we will proceed to put all of them on the floor. I would like to start however with a verbal presentation from staff and this is regarding 2.2. Regarding the Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan this has been in front of council for many years now and I thought it would be good for new counselors to just kind of get a brief history update and be good for me as well just to kind of hear where we’re at with this particular piece of property.

It’s a significant property in Byron so I would look to staff right now to please go ahead with them. Good afternoon through the chair this is Alison Curtis on behalf of planning and development for item 2.2 which can be found on page 6 of the agenda package. The Byron Gravel Pitz is a unique area within the city of London that has been providing gravel products to supply the London construction market for over 75 years. In the early 1990s the city began exploring the long-term planning for future uses of the lands and developed the Southeast Byron area plan which was approved in 1992 as the aggregate reserves have continued to deplete and extractive industrial operations wind down.

There’s been renewed focus on the future uses of the Gravel Pit lands. Process of developing a secondary plan for the area was initiated in 2016 and Municipal Council approved a terms of reference directing staff to develop a secondary plan to guide future development for the secondary plan area. At the same time work was underway to complete an environmental assessment for the commissioner’s road realignment which required work on the secondary plan to pause. The EA was completed in 2019 and improved approved the realignment of commissioner’s road through the secondary plan area.

Once this work was completed the city continued work on the secondary plan. Since 2019 staff have been working to understand the physical characteristics of the site evaluating recreational and open space options for the area and consulting with land owners the public and provincial ministries to inform the development of land use concepts and development principles. Staff have prepared a draft secondary plan that provides policy direction for the lands within the gravel pits based on its unique topography natural features and relationships with the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff are recommending that the draft secondary plan be received for information and staff be further directed to commence public engagement with the community and other partners to inform the final secondary plan in the implementing official plan amendment.

It is anticipated that engagement with the public and other partners will occur during the second and third quarter of this year. Plan refinement and another statutory public meeting will be held in the fourth quarter. Thank you and staff are happy to address any additional questions you might have. Okay thank you so I’ll turn it over to committee now for any questions on that item or any other secondary or consent items.

Councilor Oppens. Yeah I just would like to make some comments if I may and through you and thank the chair for the presentation and to staff as well there’s a lot of history in the in the secondary plan for the pit. In fact I go back to probably eight years ago in my first meeting we had a planning 101 session and staff mentioned we should never refer things back unless there’s a really good reason and what was on the agenda was the gravel pit and we did have to refer back and it has been I understand a lot of work gone into where we are today so we are receiving the draft plan right now really looking forward to the public participation process. I know we’ve done a number of public information sessions the past number of years but I want to just comment on what staff said about the uniqueness of this area and it has great public interest so really looking forward to in the second and third quarter having public information sessions getting the input from the public as we look forward to receiving I guess the final draft coming back to us later on next year.

I do have a question around once that final secondary plan does come to us next year what would the process look like going forward if we decide to receive it or what are the next steps going forward. Through you chair the the next steps after the secondary plans approved so that will provide land use designations we’d be expecting plans of subdivision to come in that would be looking at the different blocks of land for development and through those plans the subdivisions additional studies would be there there would also be depending upon the ownership of the land we’ll call it the the donut whole of the the gravel pits which may become into public ownership there would be a master plan a recreational master plan that would be undertaken that would provide the long-term development of those passive and active recreational uses. Councilor. Yeah thank you for that information I think we’re just starting that process now with that public engagement and hoping to hear a lot from the public hope that information gets out to the public as we undertake the final version of the secondary plan so I want to thank staff been waiting for this for quite a long time so thank you.

Any other comments or questions for staff? Councilor Frank. Thank you yes and I also appreciate reading through this is I have chat with a couple different people about this topic I was just hoping to hear from staff a little bit about the process for protecting the bank swallows that we know are at the location which are species at risk. No staff through your chair we have been in discussions with the ministry and will continue to be in discussions with ministry there’s a bit of a challenge that the licenses have to be surrendered for development to occur the slopes have to be made safe we are trying to work with opportunities that we can preserve the bank swallows or provide for an alternative location for them maybe within the gravel pits Councilor.

Thank you and just to follow up so would that kind of information be included in the secondary plan or would that be included in each specific development application individually? Good staff that would follow through subsequent applications currently it may form part of the master plan for the recreational leisure portion which would also look at some preservation of natural heritage features that are currently within the gravel pits so those would be all incorporated into that larger master plan. Councilor. Thank you then I look forward to seeing that master plan later on.

Thanks. Any other comments or questions from committee or visiting councilors? Councilor Permall. Thank you chair and through the chair to the staff when we receive the advisory committee minutes and there’s a lot of times it’s being noted and the things that were discussed but we actually don’t know the results or what the advisory committees are supporting and I just don’t know if it’s if there’s an opportunity to include the information for us because there is a lot of input that I feel we are missing and we don’t know how these advisory committees how they feel about a specific issue.

So my question is to the staff is there an opportunity to include this because I’m quite sure during the meetings the advisory committees they agree on certain things they disagree on other others. Go staff. Through you chair one would hope through the minutes of the advisory committee that they provide their comments to us but also we’re accepting the comments from them and within that final staff report that we bring forward the end of the fourth quarter there sometime into the first quarter will include the comments that do come from the advisory committees so it’ll be part of an appendix so you’ll be able to read those those comments. Councilor.

Thank you. This might be actually a question more to the clerk’s office and I do I attended one of the advisory committees last week and again I haven’t seen the minutes yet but I really think that our staff when they take the minutes of these if this could be included so I don’t think this specifically specifically to this committee but because I saw the advisory committee I just want to mention it that it would be certainly helpful to the committees when it comes that it actually states the opinions of the advisory committees or what they stand for so it’s more for the for our clerk’s office when they are taking the notes and taking the minutes if they can include it for us as well so I’ll see if the clerk wants to comment on that okay I’ll go to Ms. West like power on that question or comment. Thank you through the chair our role in the city courts office at that meeting at the community advisory committee meetings is the same as our role at standing committees and council and that’s the record of the motions that are passed so in some instances you’ll see where the comments of a working group or the findings and that sort of information is attached to the report coming out of the community advisory committee meeting where they had directed that as part of a motion that that be forwarded either to civic administration or to the standing committee and that’s that’s the extent of the of the record that we keep we do not do a verbatim dialogue summary and where the community advisory committee deems it appropriate to make a formal recommendation about their findings that’s what’s reflected in the in the committee report so if there’s not a motion that has that type of direction that’s why you see the clauses that refer to the notation about the presentation that they received or the discussion that they may have had but there wasn’t a motion that came out of it councilor purple thank you and that certainly is understandable one of the things if we can please when we have our staff at these advisory committees if we can inform the members of these advisory committees if they want this a certain topics to come to us that it’s going to be industry through direction or through the motion and once they noted that I believe that there was going to be more involvement in terms of the direction and motion and the information will get to us so I would just like to ask our staff to advise the members of the committee during the meetings thank you miss Westlake power I’ll go back to you on that request and want to hear your comments thank you through the chair I appreciate you acknowledging me again and being able to speak to that request that has made very clear to the community advisory committee members when they are brought on their onboarded as part of a committee and as you may be aware we’re going through a process right now of bringing on new members and that will again be part of the onboarding process councilor purple no more questions thank you very much I do have any other comments or questions on the consent items councilor purple yes for 2.5 the monthly report if I threw the chair to the staff if you look at the page sorry where’s the table on appendix a and my question to the staff is if you look at year-on-year during the last three years we are really on a large substantial decline and I wanted to ask you if there are any specific reasons potentially I know it has nothing to do directly with us but in terms of the economy what’s what’s your input on that and also if there are any opportunities so if we look at the year-on-year last three years the significant decline any feedback on that please go to staff.

Chair it’s kind of welding the manager of plans examination here on behalf of Peter Picaris I think the chair to council purple we believe that the biggest change that we’re noticing in the construction values for 2023 over 2022 and 2021 do have to do with just some economic aspects of it the interest rates increasing and things are just adding some uncertainty into the markets so we are noticing an increase that has been pretty consistent throughout the year so outside of that we’re not a hundred percent sure where it’s going but we are still planning for the all of the new units to come in and are getting everything ready for when they go. Council purple. Besides the economic situation which I think we’ll understand are there any opportunities or certain things from our end that we could potentially improve on or make things faster or anyway be more progressive anything from our end yes through the chair currently what we are working on is we’re taking a step back and we’re looking at everything from an enhanced customer service standpoint to help streamline things as the numbers are lower it’s a prime opportunity for us to grow reach a new staff get all of our processes in order so that we can moving forward when these units come into us be prepared for the increase in building permits councilor and in terms of the staffing levels and I know in June very safe that request for additional 11 additional staff and as far as I know the recruitment started immediately any update on the progress of recruitment of these staff the recruitment is still sorry about that through the chair the recruitment is currently underway we do have the postings going up on the board recently or very soon we haven’t seen a whole lot of the numbers come back and the positions haven’t necessarily closed yet so in the coming weeks we will get a better opportunity and have a better idea what those applicants are looking like mr. proble or council proble sorry no more questions thank you thank you any other comments councilor Hopkins yeah thank you mr.

chair I just have a couple of comments as well just listening to the conversation from the councilor on the building division monthly report as he stated we get the three years I just for you to staff I would love to see numbers over a five or six year period which I think would give us a better indication where we are I’m often when I do read the building reports I often wonder how we compare to other municipalities to it’s very easy just to be very focused in our own city and where we are with numbers and and moving permits forward but I I know it it’s just the industry itself is having challenges and I would like to see somehow how we compared other municipalities I personally think that we’re hanging in there and doing everything that we’re where possibly can do good to hear that we’re still pushing the staffing getting that complement going the technology getting that that system updated and working better is something that I’m very supportive of and I know the building department is doing everything possible so I just want to encourage staff to keep up the good work thank you any other comments or questions for staff I just like to follow up a bit on this discussion mr. Wilding I had the same questions in my head the councilor Hopkins had I know the years of 21 and 22 where I would well I would would say exceptional but I remember hearing that these were very busy years so I’m just wondering if staff could comment are we back down to more normalized times pre-covid times or is this a bigger concern of onset of maybe recessionary times with interest rates starting to take their effect through the chair it’s a few discussions where it appears that we’re coming down into more of what would have been our historic normals of course with London being as fast as growing as municipality as we are we are very much watching the numbers and the permits coming in and growing it account like growing for that on in looking at all of our data I have kind of noticed through this discussion as well that the additional year or two would make a lot of sense on the data so I do appreciate council’s request there that is something that we are very actively working on and I do like to note to compare to other cities and that will be something that I’ll take back chat with staff and see what we can come up with our okay thank you as we know 47,000 homes is the target and there’s concerns when we start to see a slowdown on how we’re going to get there which goes to my comments on you know the Byron gravel pit I’m very happy to see this back on you know eight years ago when it got started in fill and housing concerns weren’t on our radar but now they are and talk about an infill project of quite magnitude so those are just my personal comments to staff I encourage you to keep this train going because I think that’s an opportunity for us to to get some much needed housing done there so if there are no other comments or questions then I need a motion on the floor for consent items Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank and I’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay thank you and I’ll move on to our scheduled items starting with 3.1 regarding properties at two and three Ken in place to be removed from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources I’ll look for a motion to open that public participation meeting Councillor Hopkins second by Councillor Frank and I’ll call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five zero we have the staff report if there are any questions of technical nature for staff I’ll go to committee right now before I go to comments from the public seeing none I understand the applicant is here okay then I’ll open for comments from the public if there’s anyone would like to speak to this matter please approach the mic I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online okay thank you so I’ll look for a motion just one more warning okay seeing none then I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation in Councillor Hopkins I guess seconder please Councillor Hill your seconds so I will call the vote answer Lewis please thank you closing the vote the motion carries four to zero thank you I’ll open the floor now to many members Councillor Hopkins yeah I’m happy to move the motion I know it is we’re looking at removing it from the register doesn’t meet any of the nine points so I also just want to thank staff when you give us these reports they’re very detailed I’m not the expert and I really appreciate all the information and detail that goes into the south report so thank you I get a seconder for the motion moved by Councillor Hopkins Councillor Frank seconds any other comments or questions before I call the vote seeing none then I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five zero thank you have a similar item scheduled item 3.2 regarding 689 Hamilton Road I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM on this Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins now call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so I’ll look for anyone and Chambers would like to address the committee on this item I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online through their chair there’s no one online okay looks like no one wants to speak to this so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM Councillor Frank seconder Councillor Hopkins call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so I’ll open this item for our committee Councillor Frank I’m happy to move the staff recommendation and I think that Councillor and Councillor will be very happy to have it moved as well even though he’s not here okay thank you can I get a seconder on this one deputy or acting Mayor Lewis second any comments or questions before I call call the vote seeing none let’s vote on it losing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you moving on to 3.3 regarding 1474 Clayley Road I will look for a motion to open the PPM Councillor Hopkins seconded by acting Mayor Lewis call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero we have the staff report I’ll look to committee now if they have any technical questions for staff at this time seeing none then I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee please state your name and you have five minutes good evening mr. Chair and committee my name is Jersey Smallerick I’m a partner with Civic Planning and Design and I’m here today to represent a partnership of two builders led by Royal Premier Holmes who are the owner and developer for the project first off I want to acknowledge that we are in full agreement of staff planning staff’s recommendation brought to you before you this evening and we also want to thank Planning staff who worked with us diligently throughout the process specifically Michaela Pines and Melanie Vivian who have been a great help to get this project to the finish line this 18 unit project info project proposed at 1474 Clayley is on an interesting site 50% of it is on a heavily treed slope so you can’t really develop much of that part and we’re actually retaining the majority of the trees and the slope as is the western portion of the site currently includes a single family home which is proposed to be redeveloped into two buildings the front portion having a well three story 12 unit rear lane back-to-back townhouse building that all the units are going to be fronting on to boards Clayley Road and then in the rear there’s gonna be a six there’s gonna be six units three story townhouses with traditional style front garages as you’ll see we provided and included a project fact sheet with the on the added agenda hopefully we’ve had a chance to take a look at that it provides further details about this project and outlines how we’ve led our community engagement process with the community I’ll leave it at that if there are any questions from the committee I’ll be happy to address them at the appropriate times thank you thank you I’ll go to the public if there’s any persons that would like to address the committee now is your time I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online thank you so seeing no one would like to address a committee I’ll look for our motion to close the PPM Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Frank seconds I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so I’ll now open the this item for committee discussion motions etc I see Councilor Cuddy let you go ahead and I’m sure this is in your ward thank you chair and through you first of all I want to thank the constituents of Ward 3 in this area Kalele and also in Webster for the for their work with the developers and the planners on this this has been in my short-term on council this has been the I won’t say it easiest but most comfortable project we’ve worked on and I wish they were all this way the planners civic were excellent to work with the residents came together we were able to collaborate on a design that nicely impacts the the area and it’s just been a very good relationship building process we’ve had a number of residents that came to us with some suggestions I was able to pass them on to the planners we were able to work them in and I’ll chair I’ll even mention that the planners were so easy to to work with on this that they were able to salvage some trees that that were designated to come down but due to a good working relationship we were able to salvage the trees and and placate the neighbors and and so it’s just been a very good relationship we’re very happy with it and again if all infill developments could go this way I wish they would so thank you to all of the residents on Webster and on Benjamin who worked with me on this and on Kalei and also to to civic for their work on it thank you thank you counselor look to committee members for questions or comments counselor Frank thank you yes I want to echo a couple of things that council cut I just mentioned I do appreciate how many trees they are saving in that over 50 or just I think 50% of the area is green space which is above our minimum of 30% so want to thank the applicant for making every effort to try and protect those trees and I did notice as well that ensuring enhanced tree tree planting is provided at site plan is included so I look forward to seeing an enhanced tree cover as outlined in that area so I’m happy to move staff’s recommendation and just thank staff and the planners at civic as well for working on this together so we’ve got motion that’s moved can I get a seconder Councilor Hopkins do you I was gonna go to you next you’re welcome to comment but if you want second it that’s fine so we’ve got motion moving in second and I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins yeah thank you and I appreciate the work counselor’s comments as well it’s always good to hear the perspective of the word counselor I do have a couple questions around the development happy to second it it’s a great in in feel like the counselor said and the gift back for the trees is really appreciate it being in in the recommendation to enhance the tree planting and I could see that that’s gonna happen I wasn’t sure if it is a three or four or has that been decided yet three or four story and the second question I have is around the fencing is there going to be fencing I know one of the concerns from the public was the fencing just want to know where that lays I’ll go to stuff about through the chair the rear buildings are three stories in the front ones were four stories and regarding the fence that would be something that they would be able to do at site plan is further discuss the heights regarding that Council thank you for that as we approve the the zoning we don’t see that process coming forward so that’s why I’m asking I’m glad you are going to be looking at the fencing concerns through the site plan process and thank you other questions or comments on this motion okay seeing none then I’ll call to vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you moving on 3.4 this is regarding 165 to 167 Egerton Street I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting acting Mayor Lewis made a motion then seconded by Councillor Frank I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so we have the staff report if there are any technical questions for staff I’ll look to committee at this time seeing none I’ll ask if the applicant would like to address the committee yes thank you mr. Chair my name is Nick Dajak with SPM representing the owner and developer for this project generally we’re supportive of the staff report and three things as an excellent project coming forward and not good opportunity for more compact residential development and for sites like babies that we’re seeing possibly in Adrian size this is a very typical project that we see with a benefit the community working with the owner and the architect a plus link we’ve created a design that fits with within the community maintains the two houses fronting onto Egerton Street which when we maintain that streetscape character and hides the parking and townhouse development to the rear providing nine additional units so we’re currently going through the process with seeing how the comments from the parents and and the urban design peer review panel can be accommodated we’ve made a few changes that we then greatly improved the site layout and and the building materials and that kind of thing so I’m happy to answer any questions but you look forward to an approval and safety and application moving forward thank you thank you I’ll look to the gallery now for any folks who would like to speak to the committee on this particular item I’ll ask clerk if there’s anyone online see the chair there’s no one online thank you seeing no one in the gallery at the mic I will assume that we’re good to to call the vote so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM council Frank seconded by councilor Hopkins and I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you and I’ll open this item for committee members council Frank thank you yes as always I’m happy to see a nice infill project coming to us I am wondering just through the chair to staff about the the setbacks the front yard and the interior look a lot smaller but I know that they’re in measurement with the existing so any consideration or worries about that being too close to adjacent properties or you’re fine with the existing setbacks I’ll go to staff and the question of setbacks through the chair so the setbacks that are being requested are for the existing dwellings so just recognizing those existing situations and and it’s actually tied to the single detached dwellings exclusively so the the townhouses themselves would have to meet the minimum required by the R5 zone councilor thank you that makes sense so then then the new staff will probably have nice buffers to the adjacent properties is what you’re saying okay yeah that’s my main technical question okay other comments questions motions councilor Hopkins yeah thank you mr.

Chair and through you to staff the green space any comments around it being sufficient I have no to admit I’m trying to find it in the recommendation so if you can just add staff comment and read space on this project sure thank you through you mr. Chair so private amenity spaces are provided for each of the townhouse units they are provided a six meter setback from the building to the adjacent side yard or part of me side side lot line I believe there are also private balcony or deck spaces as well so amenity space is provided for each of the proposed units and then there are also existing patios on the single detached dwellings as well for private amenity space and through a review staff were up the opinion that that’s a sufficient also felt afraid thanks had one follow-up I did notice in the comments there’s mentioned for a public bike rack given that there’s not it looks like any any other kind of outdoor amenities provided that would allow somebody to secure their bike too I’m just wondering if that’s something that has been discussed with the applicant and might be considered I’ll start with staff on that one sure three Mr. Chair so there haven’t been any discussions however that’s something that can be considered through a future site plan Councilor thank you yes well I’d love to include a little amendment asking and directing staff to have discussions with the applicant about having a public bike rack at the location okay so you’ve moved a motion or do you have the just of that motion Councilor can you can you repeat that or please I would probably be under the existing staff recommendation under part B where we’re already asking the site plan approval to consider a couple things so maybe it’d be item five oh sure yeah whichever area you want to put in four or five anyway under just part B something along the lines of staff be directed to discuss public bike parking with applicant I also would take any staff feedback on the wording of this on the fly motion staff can do way in here on what the Council is looking for with some suggestions on wording for a clerk through the chair the suggested wording would be that the site plan authority be directed to consider short-term bicycle parking so if a committee want to refresh their screens their clerk has the motion there okay if you see if you look at the the motion if you look down to V under B B V a line has been added staff be directed to discuss short-term part bicycle parking are you okay with that Council Frank okay a seconder Councilor Hopkins Councilor Hopkins is in the cage he would like to second any other discussion acting mayor Lewis I know we’re we’re only asking staff to discuss and I know chairs never want to engage in too much across the debate on this or at any committee on any issue in terms of cross debate but this is a private residential development there is bicycle parking being provided there is parking being provided so I want the I want to hear the rationale more in terms of because people are going to have their their garages and things so you can park your bike in your garage you can park your guest bike in your garage I’m you know I get concerned when we start micro-managing site plan details to that level when there are options available for folks so I want to know where like where the rationale is in terms of short-term I get we have guest parking for cars and and I understand that it feels to me like that’s where the Council is trying to get to is that we want guest parking for bikes as well but I’m just not sure where we are going to draw the line without reviewing our overall parking policies to start inserting these things in to individual applications like if that’s something that we want to review in overall parking policies I think we should have that discussion I also would like to know whether discussion with the applicant has been had on on this because I’m always hesitant to start adding things in that the discussion hasn’t happened with the applicant on so through you chair if if the Council can address those a little bit I would appreciate that I’m not necessarily opposed to it but I’d like a little more detail in terms of the thought process I’ll look to the mover of the motion to respond sure happy to yes so I’m just thinking of my use so if I was to go and bike over there it looks just based on the design that I wouldn’t be able to lock up anywhere and I have to carry my bike up a flight of steps into somebody’s house which is I can do it but it’s annoying and we’re providing a lot of parking for cars although that’s arguable based on who you talk to and I think that is somebody who would commute to this person’s house by bike I would like something that I could lock to and usually when that happens when I can’t find anything either lug it up steps to somebody’s house or I go and find like a city stop sign and lock it to that and I never feel overwhelmingly confident it will be there when I return and I don’t know for sure but maybe my direction is to ask the chair to staff are there garages to me this look like there were no garages and all the parking spots were up front and so again I was just thinking that if we’re going to be providing that much available parking to both residents and to visitors it would be nice if they had visitors who would be able to to park their bike out front because I wasn’t sure if there garages there so I’ll go to staff is there secured parking at each individual residence or is it shared parking a parking lot three Mr. Chair there are no private garages for each unit there’s just the surface parking available but no private garages okay Councilor thanks so I think then again to me just having a nice little bike rack me with like four little lock-up loops would be sufficient and that’s why I just wanted the staff to discuss because also maybe it’s something where they only do one whatever that’s fine but I think as somebody would probably bike here I wouldn’t want to carry my bike up their steps I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis and then to Councilor Hopkins I’m sorry Acting Mayor Lewis thank you chair and and I appreciate Councilor Frank following up and giving a little more on that and I do apologize actually I I read the detached garage but it’s to be removed not to stay so that that was my mistake on that piece so I apologize for that so I understand where the Council is going and I understand that it’s a discussion that it may or may not happen I will assure her when she comes to visit later this week in Ward 2 she won’t have to carry her bike up the steps she can lock it up in the backyard with me but that’s that’s I’m open to supporting this as a discussion because I do think what what she convinced me of is while this is a town host development I have visited friends at apartment buildings and had no place to lock up my bike and so I understand why she wants to have that at least as part of the discussion on that and yeah if it’s a for loop sort of traditional rack I mean that that’s better than a city no parking sign out on the side of the road or whatever else might be available so I appreciate the discussion on that and thank you to Councilor Frank for a little more detail on her thought process.

Councilor Hopkins yeah thank you just to add to the conversation and why I second this I appreciate the acting mayor’s concerns about getting into micromanaging I don’t think we are when it comes to discussing we’re not going to see the site plan process going forward this is an opportunity where we can make these suggestions to discuss so it’s why I’m seconding it. Any other comments or questions before we I put this motion that’s been moved and seconded as amended on the floor seeing none then I’ll if the committee would permit or permit me to throw my two cents in I see where the acting mayor was going on this and I think if this development had individual driveways or garages then I wouldn’t be too keen on it but this strikes me as like like compartment would be and in that case we shared parking lot for shared cars and visitors etc. I think a discussion on having secure place for tying up your bike is it’s not a bad conversation so I will support that. Okay so I’ll put the motion on the floor please for voting.

And the vote the motion carries five to zero. Thank you moving on to 3.5 146 extra road I will ask for a motion to open the public participation meaning Councillor Hopkins a seconder by acting mayor Lewis so call the vote. The vote the motion carries five to zero. We have the staff report questions for staff seeing none then I will look to the applicant the applicant is here please sir give us your name and you have five minutes we’ll go ahead.

Thank you Mr. Chair members of the committee James McGuffin Monteith Brown Planning Consultants I’m here representing the numbered company the applicant for this development the development is a plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment is an extension of the Middleton estate subdivision and basically is coming forward at this time due to timing of stormwater management infrastructure at the time of the approval of the original Middleton estates. We would like to thank staff for working diligently with us to make this committee meeting there was a lot of work that was undertaken by the planners to ensure that we were making this particular meeting and would also like to identify that we have reviewed the recommendations and support the proposal as submitted by the planning staff and I’m available to answer any questions that may arise. Thank you very much there’s anyone from the public that would like to address a committee please go to the mic I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

Jason Lalonde. Mr Lalonde please go ahead you have five minutes. Thank you thank you for giving me the time yeah I understand that our traditional design culture is a powerful driving force and it’s easy to stick with familiarity however since our traditional methods haven’t have proven slightly problematic I think it’s important that we work to break away from the past while some boxes may technically be checked in this proposal I think there are some issues and and the design can be improved I think the biggest problem I have with this development is that it is largely more single family home sprawl. The area set aside for single detached homes offers 20% fewer units than the medium density area but takes up twice as much space so sprawl is clearly an inefficient use of space as I understand it it has been established sprawl and sent devices driving and disincentivizes active and public transit sprawl also cost the city more money to maintain and service so it sounds like sprawl should be avoided and but this this is just more sprawl sprawl is financially unsustainable and yeah I think we need to get away from it other areas or other issues with the the design here the the staff report said that there was in green space that was provided for a focal point in central gathering however there are two green spaces at opposite ends not in a central point the green space at the top is OS 5 where a park can’t be established as I understand it and the OS 1 green spaces down near the single family homes where there are backyards there is a park in the neighboring community which is good so that’ll be good for anyone who doesn’t have to cross Bradley Avenue but the median density dwellers who want to get to a park with a playground are gonna have to cross or lanes of of road so I don’t know if that’s the greatest thing the report says that this is a walkable neighborhood now I know there’s a commercial section at the top in the north section I don’t know what’s gonna go there exactly if there’s gonna be a grocery store but if not the nearest grocery store is a 22 to 27 minute walk and that’s for the higher priced grocery store the nearest budget grocery store is a 31 to 36 minute walk which is a long wonderland road which to be frank is a terrible walk unless the proposed commercial site will host a grocery store this designed virtually guarantees residents will be driving for their groceries rather than walking or cycling I would think a walkable and cyclable neighborhood would strive to guarantee that most would walk or cycle to purchase their food as far as the cyclability I wonder what indoor bike parking will be provided for the medium-density units who don’t own garages I’ve lived in a building with out proper bike storage and it is a very big disincentive to try to bike anywhere and providing bike paths is great but we also need to think about where people can store their bikes when they’re at home and so I do think that that does need to be addressed if we were to replace all these single family units with more dense options we could do townhouses three-story walkups small section sorry small sections of mixed-use buildings that have retail office space and residential we could easily hit a thousand or more homes in this development and at an average occupancy rate of 2.4 people per household that’s enough people to support a small grocery store right in the middle of the development along with a few other shops and that’s not even factoring in the Middleton Estates right next door one thing I just want to point out that to be frank wealthier people live in single-family dwellings and poorer people live in medium density in this plan the major roadway cuts through the poor area the major roadway needs to be crossed by the medium density dwellers north of Bradley in order to access OS 1 green space this may just be a coincidence but I think it’s something that we should probably look at a little more closely this place doesn’t really seem the development doesn’t really seem to have a central gathering point there is park at the north park of the south but if we were to make everything more dense we could then have a large park in the center with a few shops and cafes and restaurants where people could gather and get together otherwise they’re not walking anywhere they’re just staying in their houses we’re driving everywhere so I’ll try and sum up quickly the current proposal is unfortunately more sprawl though familiar it’s not gonna help us get further sprawl’s environmentally and sustainable fiscally and sustainable financially not viable as it cannot pay for itself the plan disincentivizes active and public transit and incentivizes car travel and Exeter is just south and that should probably be where we steer cars that’s my five minutes thank you very much for your time thank you any other persons I would like to speak to the committee so anyone else online clerk through the chair there’s no one else online okay seeing that there’s no one else that would like to address the committee I will look to move for a motion to close the PPM Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank call the vote now yeah I did with the big close public meeting and I think I would advise the person online that your microphone is still on deputy mayor Lewis closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you I’ll put this item on the floor for committee members also Frank thank you and thank you both to the applicant staff and then the resident who commented online I did want to follow up maybe some of the ideas that were sparked by the resident I’m wondering I’ve pulled up the the map that’s on page 17 the kind of outlines the different zones that are being rezoned and I’m just wondering if staff can maybe briefly walk us through the various lots and what the density is on them I know there’s like some R1 or 1 or 4 or 6 OS 5 so I was just hoping to get like a real quick overview of of maybe how many units would be on each of those lots if possible because I’m getting kind of confused about where the townhouses are and where the single family homes are go to staff so you through chair just looking at the plan I don’t have the the map up that the council was after but the single family would be the residential R1 zones and then the townhouse blocks would be the the R5’s here are six zones so there’d be the cluster in there and that would allow for like I said the single detached and the townhouse development noting full well that some of the units can be brought up to two or three based on the recent legislation from the province councilor thank you so just following up our ones can have up to three units on a lot due to the additional residential unit but in no way if we approve R1 would we have to compel them to build three units on an R1 spot go to staff that’s correct Councilor thank you the follow-up question I have to that was just servicing for that area again if it is as is I assume if you’re bringing this to council or committee we have all servicing available but hypothetically if we are to move the R1’s up to a higher density is that possible to be serviced in that area through the chair go stuff through the chair thanks for your question as part of the draft plan we reviewed the servicing capacity available as per the plan if there was a request for higher density we’d have to review that to see if that servicing is attainable councilor thank you yes based on that information I appreciate the information from staff I personally would like to vote on the R1 separately as I don’t think that they’re an efficient use of space given our housing and environmental crisis is so I’m hoping that there’s a possibility to do that maybe through the the clerks I do think it would be great if the applicant could reconsider and do more townhouses in that area so the clerk will pull that to be voted on separately councilor other comments or questions from the committee and acting mayor Lewis thank you chair and through you there is a reason that people are still building single-family homes because people still want to buy single-family homes live in single-family homes and have raised their families in single-family homes the other thing I think is really important to to emphasize is the city the developer nobody can compel a commercial retail business to open in any site the the comment we heard from the public was that’s enough people for a small grocery store I can tell you the downtown has been asking for a grocery store for 20 plus years and the catch mint area that they need requires a minimum of another 10,000 people living in the downtown before they would consider a grocery store and we’re talking about the big chains here necessarily a small independent but there’s not a whole whole lot of small independent grocery stores operating right now and so we can’t base a decision on a neighborhood zoning application on what might potentially occupy a retail space in fact recently there were discussions around updates of the London plan for the downtown to not require commercial ground floor outside of Dundas place in Richmond Road that we wanted to focus the commercial there because the retail world is changing rather dramatically since the pandemic and bricks and mortar shops just aren’t in demand the way they used to be commercial whether it’s retail or office space is struggling already we and and other committees of this council have heard repeatedly for several months now the challenges with the downtown vacancy rates in commercial spaces so to think that we will put them in neighborhoods and that they will fill up I think is rather hopeful but not really practical in the current economic realities so I’m going to support the full staff recommendation here chair you mentioned in in the last application the 47,000 units in fact we referenced that in the building report to you every unit we build is one more unit we’re closer to the 47,000 the 47,000 number is not an affordable unit of housing it’s not a rent geared to income unit of housing it’s housing period and when we’ve got a vacancy rate in the city of well under 2% we need to take every unit that we can get changing zoning now means shovels are not going in the ground anytime soon because the applicant has to go back and completely rework their financials their engineering all of those things that they’re here with an application for us before us now because those things are in place the minute we start changing zoning requirements based on some public comment or some desire for more infill means they’ve got to go back to all of their financiers and you know density is great yes we’re also deal in a high inflation environment right now where we’re actually seeing units slowed down because of the cost of materials so the more expensive we make a development the more difficult it can be to get shovels in the ground as well so I’m not going to support any changes to this I’m going to support the staff recommendation moving forward I think we have to be be pragmatic about the fact that when the applications get to the point that they’re before us and we send it back and say rework it what we’re really saying is don’t put a shovel in the ground for another two or three years so I’m not going to support changes to this tonight Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you committee members for the discussion here I want to just maybe follow up from the public I really appreciate the comments coming from the public I didn’t see any here in the recommendation even though I really did appreciate the internal department comments I thought those were really important I don’t see it too often I understand we do it with subdivisions but it really helps me being a committee member to hear the discussions that have been ongoing to this point and from leading from those comments that were made maybe I’ll just start with the at the corridor I want to before we get into the housing conversation the open space and the complete corridor that is going to be part of this subdivision development I think it’s really important that the city will be obtaining the that corridor working along with upper Thames obviously we’re going to need a section 28 on this but really creating a corridor there that is going to help not only move the water around but people and creating and I hope creating that low impact development that really needs to happen in this area so I understand that’s going to be an agreement following if this is approved or not here with the city and the developer I think those things are going to be really important and I’d just like to add since I have everyone’s attention here staff in particular the importance of when this corridor comes about the monitoring and how that is going to work is also going to be very very important it’s a low-lying area it’s it’s it needs that extra bit of care as we develop this subdivision around it I really appreciated the the public’s comments because it really got me thinking about how isolated this area is and how car eccentric it is and I will be supporting the recommendation I appreciate Councillor Frank’s comments about that residential I think we could do more density in this area but the concerns that come with more density in this area the walkability and the transit is lacking so if we can do more to encourage that walkability the biking the just the movement and not depending on the cars just getting in and out of this area can be challenging from time to time so I am supported mainly because subdivisions today we do that mixed use it’s to me it’s that simple we put in single homes we put in medium density high density throw in some commercial there’s a lot of commercial in this area but I will be supporting it I would like to acknowledge though in the recommendation there are there is a holding provision that it be added in the recommendation I understand the clerk has that as well so with that those are my thoughts thank you thank you I still need a motion we do not have an emotion Councillor Frank okay you have more comments please feel free to go ahead thanks I just want to follow up on a couple of comments are mentioned I do actually agree with acting Mayor Lewis no one can compel a developer to build but we are in the position that we can approve and refuse applications and as we’ve been discussing over last couple months we know we need to be doing things differently single-hand single-family home sprawl is expensive for the city for taxpayers it contributes more to our missions and honestly I think it’s gonna be slowly phased out the way that VHS and CDs are you know seen less and less and use less and less because it’s no longer working for us and nothing changes if nothing changes so I don’t think we can reasonably be approving more urban sprawl giving our housing and environmental crisis is and I’m happy to be both hopeful and practical every developer I’ve spoken with would rather build townhouses because they make more money at least that’s my understanding I could be wrong and if units are slowing down as we have heard then that provides more time for them to redesign the two zones and I mentioned I’m not against the entire development just the two zones that are single-family homes I don’t think I have the votes to carry this but the point is if it was to go through there’s still a lot that they could be working on while they redevelop the two areas that I’m speaking about and if we’re trying to build 47,000 units and knowing that our low density residential numbers are declining regardless the point is that are housing and environmental issues remain at a crisis level and using up land for single-family homes is wasteful we gobble up over 319 hectares of farmland every day and 5% of Ontario’s farmland is agriculture and most of it’s located in Southwestern Ontario so every bit of land needs to be properly used and at this point I’d rather take a bit more time to make the right decision than live with decades of issues that we have from urban sprawl so we have the opportunity before us I again will be voting on the single family home residential one separately but the rest of it it seems like a good use of space to me so thank you for the applicant and staff for working on it but just moving forward this is something I’ll probably be bringing up more and more thanks I’ll go to Acting Mayor Lewis thank you chair so I’m going to move the staff recommendation can I have a seconder please Councillor Hill here seconds any other comments or questions on the motion we will be voting on the one item separately Acting Mayor Lewis thank you I just want to one brief comment Councillor Frank and I made this disagree on this matter but this is within the urban growth boundary it’s not sprawl sprawl is when we start to consume land outside the urban growth boundary this is intended for residential growth and use so I appreciate the passion for addressing sprawl challenges but it is within the urban growth boundary any other comments or questions before I call the vote then I’d like to have committee’s permission for me to speak to this I think at committee level is not the the place or forum to ban development of single family homes I think that’s a bigger discussion probably best held for when we review the London plan perhaps what I would suggest there are many folks that want to raise families with a backyard in a single family home and not in higher density and if it’s not available in London they’ll go to surrounding communities which I would argue would add to carbon emissions and more car driving which is exactly why those that were arguing the other side are trying to prevent so but I believe that we are acting within our London plan right now and to make a diversion of banning a certain type of development again I don’t think this is the appropriate forum for that so I will be supporting the staff recommendation there are no other comments or questions I see Councillor Tracelle please go ahead sir I’ll be very brief I just want to agree with Councillor Bailar Frank just because something is within the current boundaries of the urban growth boundary area doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate area to be building up and I think it’s one to conflate those two points and I’ll just we’re gonna have a lot of discussion about this but just because something is inside the border doesn’t mean that we don’t have discretion to say no and I’ll leave it at that thank you Councillor any other comments or questions before I call the vote we have a motion moved in second so I will call the vote and the clerk will separate it into separate items correct all right because we’re splitting it we’re gonna need two motions so I need a motion on the first for the R1 acting Mayor Lewis seconded by I’ll second it any comments or questions on that item then I’ll call the vote what we are the motion right now is the motion is to move the residential R1 special origin R1 1 - 13 7 in part a that’s been moved and seconded and I’m going to call that vote right now closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 just to move not remove it’s been sorry you didn’t refresh your screen sorry my my apologies we changed it probably before you refreshed your screen because that motion was to for the staff recommendation when I looked at the motion there was remove so let’s Councillor Frank I’m willing to I think we’d have to do a reconsideration and I’m willing to do that if you okay miss Westlake power do you want to guide us here and make sure we do the reconsideration properly thank you through the chair before you recognize me you had already said the words reconsideration you will require a motion and it can be moved by anybody because everybody voted on the favorable side of the previous motion so it’s just a reconsideration of the previous motion supporting the R1 so that it can be voted on again thank you would someone like to make that move that please Councillor Hopkins I think I have a seconder acting Mayor Lewis so if you refresh your screen if you need to it’s just a reconsideration of the last vote we had then we can do it do over so I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 okay I’ll need a mover and a seconder you can see the working now corrected you refresh your screen acting Mayor Lewis and a seconder I’ll second it any questions or comments before I call the vote then I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 4 to 1 thank you now I’d look for a motion to move the remainder of the staff report Councillor Hopkins seconder King Mayor Lewis comments or questions I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 okay thank you we are down to 3.5 regarding 146 extra road for a motion to open the PPM Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins I’ll call the vote my apologies I read the wrong all right we’re on 3.6 which is 725 729 735 737 Dundas Street 389 391 393 Hewitt Street a portion of 7r King Street 400 Lyle Street and other properties so now I will look for a motion on that item to open the PPM Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins so call call the vote I think the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 we have the staff report any technical questions for staff at this time seeing none then I will go to the applicant if the applicant is here please sir state your name and you have five minutes hello planning an Environment Committee my name is Alex Brown I work at Stantec Consulting I’m here on behalf of the land owner and developer for this project also with us here tonight is Luca caught manager of land development of medallion corporation the developer first off I want to thank you for your time here this evening and the general overall positive support we’ve received from the community and councils passed for this project this project is in the final stages of site plan approval one of our conditions to receive site plan approval is to bring the project before the committee for one further round of public participation that is why we’re here tonight Luca and sorry the staff have done a wonderful job summarizing this project in the staff report so I won’t go into details about the project Luca and I are available to answer any questions that may come up tonight that staff cannot address thank you thank you look to members of the public now someone would like to address the committee now is your time please go to the microphone please give us your name ma’am and you have five minutes I’m Sylvia Sylvia Langer from unity project for relief of homelessness next door neighbor to the development in application here and it is I guess the only thing that is outstanding for us and I suppose this is a question I could have just asked Alex while he was sitting beside me the whole time here and which I’ll address later is it has to do with the access that unity project has to the garbage which is historically in grandfather into the previous development agreements for access to garbage on that site and everything is good but I think we read the site plan a little bit mistakenly until recently and there’s just a question of where our access door is located that is of grave importance to us now so I’m wondering what the opportunity could be for us to just change that or what impact that has on the site plan right now like whether or not it’s possible to keep the access door where it is right now and not to move it to the back the very rear of our property the reason being is that we don’t have clear access from the front of our property to the rear to get that garbage through there is with regard to the fence line and the building there are obstructions in between there in terms of fire exits when you get snow and ice you know in the midst of that you’re going to have an issue then there is the fact that were we to try to reinvent how garbage is managed on our site it would require a resurfacing of our back lot it would have all these implications as well in the meantime Unity project has stationed these pallet structures in the rear yard and those kind of obstruct or affect the access where it is proposed on the site plan so that represents an issue to us I don’t really I think everything else we’ve addressed with regards to you know vibration control the concern that we have access to to ensure that we always have access to our driveway I don’t think that there is any there was some road widening written on to that but I and I’m just wanting to ensure that throughout the build and the construction that it does not ever impact access to our driveway particularly because we have a great reliance on emergency vehicles thank you so I don’t know what I really do from here with regard to that do I just like have a private conversation without I’ll I’ll ask those questions when the public participation meeting is over okay very well thank you thank you anyone else I would like to address the committee please ma’am state your name and you have five minutes hello committee my name is Jen Pastorius I represent the oldest village business improvement area thanks very much for having me here today to speak to this the oldest village has been partner with both the medallion corporation and the city of London through the two previous phases of and the current phase three of the development located along King Lyle and now Hewitt and Dundas streets since 2007 we’ve been pleased to work with the developer in the city and area businesses and residents to integrate thoughtful and useful feedback ahead of the official PPMs at all three stages of progress this was to ensure that all parties including commercial and residential interests and concerns were heard and noted in the proposal before us we met at the Palace Theater in February 2020 together feedback from residents and membership and then worked with medallion in the city to integrate solutions to parking logistical and design concerns into this iteration of the rendering and proposal we don’t work to we don’t do this work to make it difficult on any party but instead to work towards consensus on good development which provides grassroots contextual geographical and social information in order to inform development and remedy potential challenges before they occur initially when appropriate we also request design and site plan elements that work to connect the physical and social elements of these residences to the commercial corridor this is the gain of benefit to both the area of businesses residents and medallion residents one such request was made of medallion in the initial 2008 site plan application to create a connectivity pathway from 700 Dundas Street property to Dundas commercial corridor via the medallion owned lot located between OEV’s favorite unique food attitudes and 707 Dundas otherwise known as 701 Dundas these were to be commercial infill located at that location between 20 2009 and 2017 medallion said informed us that they were not able to find a suitable commercial infill for that location and in 2018 during the build of phase 2 that that commercial property was made into a surface parking lot which was prohibited in the zoning by-law under section BDC 24 the BI is pleased to see that this has been addressed in this report and that 15 meters of sod will be placed at Dundas in that location the image on appendix a overall site plan show the green space and a 1.5 meter walkway but I need to be clear to date we have seen neither a pedestrian walkway as identified nor a green space while I know commercial infill is regular is market regulated and can’t be forced with the BI requests as a part of this next project is the completion of the original site plan by with the removal or by the removal of the non-conforming use parking lot and the inclusion of the pedestrian walkway that appears in appendix a in section 4 2 this will fulfill both the zoning requirements and the 2008 site plan connectivity between medallion development complex and Dundas Street it notes in section 4.7 that city staff will continue monitoring outstanding site plan matters we’ve been waiting for connectivity passes 2009 and the removal of the non-conforming parking lot to since 2018 what assurances can the city staff provide through existing processes that these two elements will be completed during this phase of development another concern with the standing towers and the new development is the management of garbage currently the structure noted in section 43 is that there is and there is an operational and and structure that is there for garbage however the doors are regularly unlocked and left open leaving personal garbage and large furniture items to be spread out amongst the area via different means if there are to be an additional 270 units it is necessary to have garbage located and secured in an area that is less accessible to the general public can staff explain number one if the existing system noted in 4.3 will still be used once this new building is operational and second more clearly outline where additional garbage related to the 270 units will be stored and managed and if there’s a plan that is attached to this plan to address how it’s going to be managed otherwise we’re very excited to see this new building erected on the current location of the properties long shuttered as we stated in our previous comments the design conforms to the urban the urban design manual we support the inclusion of affordable units and the additional parking spots to address the current parking challenges Ollie’s Village welcomes additional residential and commercial units to the corridor as well as beneficial design to streetscape with the exception of the small list of identified improvements overall the BIA is supportive of this development in its design and scope thank you thank you any other comments from the public like to address the committee please sir state your name and you have five minutes my name is Frank Felice and I’m a resident of the Ollie’s Village and I’m in support of this development it was interesting to hear the previous discussion I was had about the challenges to design cities and if you look at this particular development you can take off some of the boxes in terms of its high density as affordable units it’s in a walkable neighborhood and so and in addition to that the east link of the BRT will be traveling one block south of where this particular development is going to be located so I think it’s a it’s really a kind of a development that should be supported it’s gonna bring people living more people living on the Dundas Street corridor to support those individual businesses that are there that are unique that are of high quality and so it I think it’s a really good mix and a good addition to the vitality of Ollie’s Village thank you thank you sir any others that would like to address many please ma’am you have five minutes give us your name and my name is Sarah Merritt I’m a resident of the Ollie’s Village I’m also the past manager of the BIA so I have a long history of engagement with the medallion corporation not my story to tell but the people who founded that particular corporation had their own experiences of homelessness so they’re very attuned to what it’s like not to have a home I’m supporting this plant site plan approval in principle I’m really pleased to see that the setback at the first level is in keeping with the scale of the existing buildings I’m also pleased that the developers designers agreed to replicate some of the existing window the sad treatments in the area it would actually be helpful at some point as this process proceeds to be able to see what that would actually look like we had some long discussions about the corner of Dundas and Hewitt particularly what the Dundas Street corner would look like for the entrance into the apartments above commercial I mean we’re able to get agreement about some really neat design there is however on Dundas Street a pretty dense brick facade beside where the entrance to the apartments are and I think it would probably create some opportunity and space for public art the four levels of structured parking while necessary is really dense in terms of what it could look like when we saw some renderings the architect did give us some ideas of what artistic designs could go on to that particular structure I think that it’s really important that there’s some enhanced design on the parking facade to avoid the perception of dead space and the domination of concrete in that area some of what I’m going to refer to Jen from the BIA has already talked about what the impression that I had from reviewing what we were given is that the this particular building is being considered separate from some of the existing challenges on that site with respect to parking challenges and lack of green space so I would respect for the request that as this process proceeds that those issues that have already been identified are dealt with at the same time as this process proceeds city staff say in the report they already have a number of files open with respect to what these issues are but I want to go also to 701 Dundas Street to the history of that in 2008 there was an expansion of the all these village community improvement plan area so that the Medallion Corporation could access the very necessary incentive programs over there at the time it may have changed now but what I was involved in the work the incentive programs were only available to properties fronting onto Dundas Street so that in order to facilitate the Medallion access to the incentive programs it would agree it was agreed that it’s 701 Dundas there would be an info project that would consist of two commercial spaces and two apartments plus a walkway onto Dundas Street for a variety of reasons we haven’t got to the point where we get that walkway Medallion did in fact or their agents did in fact advertise for some commercial tenants given that they were unable to get those tenants and they had other demands on the site with respect to staging for further development nothing has happened in the site now the reason I’m bringing that up right now is I think it’s really critical that the commercial units on Dundas Street are not the timing of their development is not contingent on whether or not commercial tenants have been identified 30 seconds thank you very much I think what would be very useful would be for the for the developer and or the city to look at a one-time incentive program to fill those spaces there’s also issues around lack of green space in the whole area and I’m wondering if it’s possible to take a look at the site plan again to see if we can increase trees in that area because we’ve already lost a number of trees on King Street along the medallion apartments to facilitate rapid transit I’m really happy to see this project proceed it’s been my experience working with the developer that they’ve been very amenable to working with the community thank you ma’am thank you for this opportunity and I hope that we get the opportunity for further consultation as this project proceeds thank you thank you also would like to address the committee my name is Miss Velasto if you look at a map of the east end of the city east of Adelaide there’s no green space for people there’s probably a how many people that will be living there are 5,000 people 2,000 people there’s no green space for the people that live there there’s no place for their dogs to go out and if you have children and I disagree that people have to live in single family homes to raise families that’s just not true families can be raised and anywhere and every every type of housing has to consider a wide range of demographics including people with small children if you want some green space you either got to go down to the Thames River at Edlington or there’s a small park at Elias near the railroad tracks going north but there’s no green space at all in that community and I don’t understand how you can approve a cluster of high-density buildings without considering how green space contributes to the healthy community so people have been very polite but it’s it’s a it’s a big issue for people that live in the core and I think it’s the responsibility of this committee to make sure that you’re not just looking at one aspect of a development but you’re looking at the whole mental health and and healthy healthy communities as a whole it’s not just about feeding the businesses on Dundas but it’s about the people that live there too thank you thank you anyone else I would like to address the committee let’s clerk if there’s anyone online Aldrin or Yasel please go ahead you have five minutes my name is Yasel Somelingham this I have a property across the street I see that there’s a commercial development along Dundas Street on this proposed application it’s a main entrance in the corner of the I couldn’t get more details on this project I just want to confirm it’s any commercial develop coming along the Hayward Street as well I’m not to sure I understand your question sir could you just be a bit more clear on that so I can ask the staff when we finish there there are at the ground level there are some commercial development happening on Dundas Street yep wanted to know whether there’s any commercial development along the Hewitt Street as well sir what street could you just repeat the street name that you’re looking for commercial you wait you wait but thank you thank you I’ll ask that the end of the end of our public participation you have some more time if you wish to continue Northern Dundas I am in support of this application and hope some developing happening in that core area we are lots of crime and other things are happening so some development like this would really enhance the data thank you thank you sir Clerk if there’s anyone else online through the chair with apologies Aldrin did you wish to speak as well no Aldrin is he is not speaking on behalf of him I spoke thank you through the chair there’s no one else on zoom okay last call for anyone in the gallery I would like to address the committee okay seeing now I’ll look for a motion to close public participation Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank I’ll call them I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so I’m just going to go to staff we had a couple questions raised couple regarding garbage the unity project want to inquire about their access to to their garbage can staff comment on that thank you Mr.

Chair as I believe was noted by the the member that spoke the original development agreement that was registered on title didn’t include any specific or special provisions for alternative garbage management for the neighboring properties that’s the same thing for the amending development agreement at this time of the phase two as well that said the applicant has shown details of the proposed garbage storage for the Jason property on their site plan they have a marked gate where it can be accessed and it’s also stored within the actual building itself so overall staff are of the opinion that a shared agreement can be achieved here but it should be done separately through from the development agreement and entered into between the two parties so through those discussions if any of the details of the site plan change in terms of the access store that was mentioned we’d be happy to take the the new revised plans at the time of the next submission so you’re saying that that would be developed do you need specific direction from the committee for that or is that you satisfied with the motion as or with your recommendation as it is yeah mr. Chair I think we were looking specifically not to include those details through the development agreement and haven’t the property owners come to their own agreement as a third party agreement separate from this process thank you there is also concern about security with the existing garbage process and also with the added population will the garbage facility be increased to account for that mr. Chair the existing garbage enclosure it’s the masonry enclosure that’s shown at the Lyle Street entrance is proposed to be used for all three phases of development the existing in the future if there are any if there’s any misuse or mismanagement of that or if there is any type of maintenance a lot of it would have to be done through our enforcement process if there’s really garbage then we would be able to respond to it on a complaint basis there is also concern of the uni project about access to their driveway during the build can you comment on that through the chair or to you mr. Chair while we work through that maybe we can move on to maybe some of the other look at marks there are some details we have to look through the traffic management plan there there are some anticipated closures for servicing connections you know there may be some points that we may want to back to the applicant as well that may be one of them but in the meantime if there’s other potential questions or requirements from the public that you want us to provide answers to happy to do that as we work through this but the uni project will have access to their parking during the build is that correct there may be some short-term closures of Dundas Street just for servicing connections but I wouldn’t expect to be for the full duration of the of the project itself and there was a question regarding commercial along Hewitt can and staff comment on that yeah three you mr.

Chair there’s one retail unit that’s located at the corner of Dundas and Hewitt will have some small frontage on Hewitt otherwise the rest of the remainder of Hewitt Street will just be for the internal purposes of the apartment building including like a multi-purpose room and a gym and that sort of thing thank you so I will now put this on the floor for committee discussion acting mirrorless thank you chair so through you I have a couple of questions for our staff and I’m going to start with the garbage question that was already directed through the public comments but I will tell you that I have a significant concern with the answer I received because these properties are already subject to complaints via by law enforcement with regard to the garbage management so I don’t know how we address this because I’m supportive of the plan in principle but I’m not satisfied in the answer that I’ve heard from staff that the plan provides enough garbage management space when the existing builds are already causing by law enforcement so I’m going to through you chair see if staff can comment on that as well as one other item which was raised a couple of times by members of the public which is ensuring that the public walkway connection is completed as part of this project and and not further delayed I always appreciate when both Ms. Merritt and Ms. Pastaurus come together and bring the history of the BIA from both sides together and that was mentioned by both of them and gets a really important feature if we are going to be asking residents of these buildings to support local business we want them to be able to walk out and access local business so that is my second question how can we ensure that through this approval process perhaps it’s in holding provision that the walkway be completed as part of this phase of the development so those are my two questions for staff that I’m looking for some answers on before I’m prepared to move the recommendation okay so let’s start with garbage Mr. Kirby can you kind of guide us here on how we can address those concerns yes through the chair to Acting Mayor Lewis I’ll start with the garbage management question so apartment buildings are dealt with interior garbage rooms and then bring garbage out on the date of pickup we’ve confirmed with our waste management group that the pickup facility that’s as Ms.

Wise mentioned is close to the Lyle Street entrance is sufficient for all of the four buildings that would be constructed here with the fourth being at present there have been some there has been history with mismanagement of that area so in terms of capacity it has the adequate capacity for the anticipated garbage it becomes then the enforcement matter in terms of ensuring that the the space provided is used adequately the fencing and the screening are maintained in accordance with the plans and it could be directed through either our development compliance team in planning development or through our enforcement area unfortunately I don’t have anything else beyond that to provide that the space is sufficient for the anticipated population and then sorry with respect to the walkway such is still with the garbage right now Mr. Kirby I’m gonna go back to you on that to see if you want to you know if that’s suffices or if you want to explore anything further on that it doesn’t entirely suffice and I don’t want to get into a cross debate with staff either somehow before I can give this the thumbs up I need to have assurance that the garbage situation that is existing now with enforcement complaints is not going to be exasperated and made even worse by the addition of a new build so development compliance through a development compliance approach rather than the by-law enforcement I think would be my preferred route but I am looking to staff for some thank you counselor I was gonna do that after I was finished speaking so I’d be looking for some sort of provision that we can implement that would address the garbage concern because it’s an ongoing concern I know the word counselors here I’m sure she’s heard it too but so have I and and I’d really like that piece addressed but I recognize that staff may need to have some discussion amongst themselves too so I’m amenable to hearing comments on the walkway letting others speak and then having staff come back with a with some more information whether they have a viable suggestion or not I’m I’m not sure but I’d like to continue the discussion not hold it up just waiting for some response on that okay so if we get through a chair here the both the walkway okay first of all mr. piece and mr. carby one of you have to shave your beards because I can’t tell you apart from over here my eyesides failing counselor Hopkins I saw your hand up it was this on the garbage or should I can come back to you after we talk about the walkway okay so mr.

piece please go head on comments regarding the walkway great thank you we changed seats and but not last names the the garbage through you mr. chair is or sorry another garbage the walkway is as miswise indicated was a provision from previous agreements and again it’s it’s something that our enforcement team we through the previous agreements we are holding security for incomplete matters facilities that were agreed upon through the previous agreements so there are mechanisms in that if should you know should it linger that our team can work with the developer to kind of force the issue to to be put in place I may tee up the applicant at this point for both matters to to get some indication of timing as to when that walkway will be provided and to see if there’s any commentary on the garbage well we kind of work through it as well and maybe we after that we can come back to either one or both of the of the topics at hand with the applicant like to weigh in here on garbage and the pedestrian walkway and development turn on your mic please there we go hello there we go thank you with respect to garbage I would like to clarify the existing garbage containment area is not intended for the proposed tower it is only to for the existing facilities the proposed tower has all garbage facilities contained within the ground floor of the building and as staff mentioned when it’s time for garbage pickup they’re going to be wheeled out by building management picked up and then brought back into staff and sorry into the building with respect to the walkway it is our full intent to install the sidewalk it is shown on our plan I know there have been some other discussions going around with the 15 meter sod it is our intention to install the sidewalk and the sod up along the Dundas Street frontage all at the same time thank you acting mayor I’m gonna go back to you as you raised this issue so I just want to hear your thoughts from what you’ve heard well I’m I’m happy to hear that existing agreements have securities attached to them that would not be released back to the applicant until the walkways complete so that helps give me some assurance that that will in fact happen I just wonder if staff can clarify in the event that we see the building built out and the walkway is still not there at what point are we talking about not closing off the final development agreement or for a future of the securities for development compliance reasons Mr. P’s generally speaking through you Mr. Chair the securities are held until all works are completed to the satisfaction of planning development staff there are instances where things start to run asked are they get stale dated so to speak and the actions required doesn’t happen often but it has happened in the past where securities have to had to be exercised to complete some final work so there there is some precedent for that I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins yeah thank you Mr.

Chair and I just want to thank the community for coming out and giving your comments because this is what we’re doing here today is to take these comments in I appreciate the concerns coming from the acting deputy mayor but this this information will be taken back and addressed so I just want to underline why we are here this evening taking in the public comments so thank you for that and just following up on the BIA concerns I heard loud and clear and I’m looking at the applicant out there to address the garbage and the walkway is really important that connectivity but also the BIA did mention the non-conforming parking lot I don’t know if the applicant wants to make a comment on that but that was something that I heard was a concern as well please go ahead regarding the non-conforming parking parking lot with respect to the non-conforming parking that’s located at 701 Dundas this is that 15 meter sod area that has been discussed when we when that sod is installed that will then bring that parking area into compliance with the appropriate zoning by-law and through the design that we have proposed in front of you tonight Councilor yeah thank you for that clarification I appreciate it I would like to go to the Unity Project Ms. Langer’s comments around some of the concerns that they’re having and I heard about the access to the door how that’s going to work and their own garbage access as well as the palettes as how that is going to be incorporated with this building heard loud and clear that a third agreement should be developed between the unity project and medallion so I would encourage those conversations definitely to continue because there are outstanding matters there I also just want to make I’ve got a few questions through you Mr. Chair just questions that I had reading the report one of them is around the Bonusing Agreement and it I’d like to know how that works and what that process is we’re getting public input where do we go forward with the Bonusing Agreement and how does that happen I think it’s a question through you to staff you know I got a staff on that and I’m sorry Councillor Hawkins thank you through you Chair to the Councillor. Bonus agreements are a mechanism to lock in the bonus elements that were agreed upon through the land use change for the zoning amendment they’re kind of a formal document very not dissimilar to a development agreement the development agreement itself would solidify all the site plan matters a bonus agreement comes separately and solidifies all of the bonusable elements mainly the affordable housing component in this case it’s an agreement between the city and the developer to ensure that the units that were provided through the zone at the the rate and time are are put in place and with some form of protection to ensure that happens for the duration of that time identified in the in the zone itself.

Councillor. Thank you for that when will it take place? Mr. Peace thank you through the the chair it happens at the end of the site plan process it’s a formality at the end which again gets drafted up through our team and with the assistance of the applicant and potentially their lawyer to register it on title.

Councillor. And as we go through this process through the chair as we continue the affordable unicorn agreement conversation can that all change to what we understand is it’s going to happen right now? Mr. Peace through the chair the the zoning called for 13 affordable units I believe that 30 the 25 to 30 years at a certain am are 80% off the top of my head and given that we are now in the site plan process that cannot change that’s locked in through the bonus and if you know there were a different land use change or a different proposal of course we know that bonus in is no longer provided under the Planning Act so we’d be working with the 13 that were agreed upon at the previous Planning Committee and Council decision for the zone itself.

Councillor. Yeah I appreciate the update thank you very much for that I would just like to make some comments since I’ve got the mic. Let’s go ahead. Mr.

Chair and again I just really appreciate seeing people here and speaking to the concerns that they may have but also I heard loud and clear this is a positive development not only with the affordable units that will be happening but the fact that this intensity is going to happen within that BRT area bringing eyes on the street I think will make the community safer supporting businesses and I think staff have heard loud and clear the work that we still need to do on this application and want to think the applicant as well for being here. Thank you I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for letting me speak today as the Ward Councillor for this development I fully support this it’s gonna be a welcome addition into Old East Village the new commercial development the parking for the residents and a completion of that piece I have heard some of the comments around enhanced design and completion around the parkway and the grass sawed area and I’ll be happy to support in any way I can to ensure that this is everything that everyone is expecting of it. I’ve been working with medallion regarding some of the issues that are currently being faced and it’s been the top-notch relationship as far as I’m concerned they’re dealing with some societal issues and some tenant issues that are and some challenges that all the businesses are facing at the moment and I look forward to doing what we can as a city to ensure that those get dealt with as well so fully support this.

Thank you we still do not have a motion on the floor so if Councillor Hopkins would you like to move it okay can I have a seconder Councillor Frank we have motion moved and second any other conversation before we call the vote being done then I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 Mitty I have a question for you we are playing to break up 3 at 6 30 for 20 minutes there are a lot of folks here I think that are here for one of the items I’m guessing for 3.9 3.10 I don’t know I’m just trying to be respectful of their time because you know after we we have two more items to get through before we get down to those I just like to hear your thoughts if we should move something ahead or if we should discontinue as this as our Hopkins not that I want to ask you a question then since you’ve asked us a question I would think that the next two items would be short I could be wrong looking around not sure but if they are short I can proceed we could do a break now I don’t see I don’t see anyone jumping forward to change the order so I’m going to continue on as is okay we are on 3.7 which is dealing with 159 Clark Road in 1900 1902 for Falgar so I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank and we will call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 so we have the staff report if there are technical questions now that’s now’s the time from committee members seeing none and I will go to the applicant if the applicants here would like to address the committee with the clerk of the applicants online through the chair there is no one online to speak to this matter okay so I’ll look to anyone that would like to address committee on this particular item and is there anyone online clerk that wants to address us okay seeing none and I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 so I put this item on the floor for committee Acting Mayor Lewis thank you chair I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor this is an application in ward 2 it is infill we are going to see redevelopment of of site that’s long been vacant since a commercial site went out of business and then was subsequently demolished so very supportive of seeing this land get reused and create some new commercial and residential space I take it you’re moving that and can I have seconder Councillor Hopkins any discussion seeing none I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 so moving on to 3.8 which is regarding 38 Exeter Road I’ll look for motion to open the PPM Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 the applicant is here would like to address the committee then now is your time work with the applicant be on the online yes good evening committee members my name is Simone Arshano I’m a planner with a struck ball Nellie Moniz and the agent for this application I review the staff report and support the approval recommendation I would also like to thanks staff for this recommendation and I’m happy to answer any questions thank you forgot to ask committee members if they had any technical questions that okay that’s fine I’ll go to the gallery if there’s anyone that would like to speak to this and I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online okay seeing no others that would like to address the committee I’ll look for motion to close the PPM Councillor Hopkins seconded by Councillor Frank call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 so I’ll put this on the floor now for committee Councillor Hopkins if I may make comments I’d like to put forward the motion this is in my ward I would like to thank the applicant for making the changes to conform to policies mainly changing the the bicycles and meeting the landscaping and open space requirements I think that’s really important it has changed increasing the bicycle spaces as well I really appreciate the report also providing recommendations to mitigate strategies to ensure no significant negative ecological impacts will occur with this development proposal it’s really important that that area we look at these the natural resources in this area it’s really a great use so that they can space being developed so really pleased want to thank staff and in particularly the applicant for making the changes thank you any other comments or questions or motions I get a motion Councillor Hopkins moves staff recommendation Councillor Frank is seconding any comments or questions they’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 thank you committee very expeditious moving to 3.9 this is regarding 46 Elmwood place and I’ll go to staff at this time understand there’s like to have a verbal presentation on this my apologies we’ll do the PPM first sorry Councillor Hopkins moves the opening of the PPM and seconded by Councillor Frank I’ll call the vote using the vote the motion carries 5 to 0 okay now I’ll go to staff for a verbal presentation thank you mr. Chair Alanna Riley here senior planner current planning just trying to take myself put myself on video but it’s not working so I’m going to continue application at 46 Elmwood place it’s on the north side of Elmwood just west of Warren cliff currently there’s a long term of vacant vacant building there that was a long-term care facility the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to convert to the vacant building to an apartment building with 30 units a lot of plan is neighborhood place type it does not permit low-rise apartment buildings however we look at policy 946 adoptive reuse of non-residential buildings in the London plan which does permit the conversion of these buildings your residential use if deemed appropriate the proposed residential intensity is two stories it also confirms with conforms with the neighborhood place type there were a lot of public concerns the concerns that I pulled out that we’re planning or traffic and parking privacy over a look and fencing loss of property values loss of long-term care facilities so quickly just a brief look at use intensity and forms staff have reviewed the application under the reference policies and are satisfied the conversion to an apartment building is appropriate through policy 946 and the rest of the neighborhood place type 1 and plan puzzle does allow for the intensification of underutilized property and it effectively uses the land and existing municipal services and staff are also satisfied that the proposed proposed form is consists with the policies of the London plan and the city design policies therefore staff are recommending the change to permit this conversion to an apartment building with 30 units thank you thank you are there any technical questions for staff at this time seeing none then I’ll look for the applicant the applicant would like to address the committee thank you mr. chair my name is Casey Coolchicki I’m a planner with link of pream limited representing the applicant for and a property sink I hope everyone’s having a good evening I’ll just start by saying thank you to staff particularly Lana for her work on this file I’ve had the chance to review that her staff report and an agreement with the recommendation for approval tonight and I’ll be on hand to answer any questions from council or the members of the public thank you thank you I’ll go to the gallery right now if there’s anyone that would like to address committee understand there’s someone in committee room 5 I’ll go to you please state your name and you have five minutes can you turn on your your microphone please can you hear me now we can yeah please go ahead okay my name is Margaret Bulge I am I live at 60 Elmwood place I’m the immediate neighbor to the West I just had some concerns about the permitted uses and you may have gone over this and forgive me if you have I got distracted by someone coming in showing me I use the mic so I just wondered if the lodging class two has been eliminated from the permitted uses I’ll ask that question any others you might have after we’re finished the okay I also I also have a concern about the garbage particularly I understand that there’s an interior garbage room within within the building but in its previous use the recycling was always outside and was quite bothersome I’m also concerned about the lack of parking spaces there’s 30 units and only 18 spaces and that’s going to create a lot of parking along the street I’m also concerned about turn around for trucks that are coming in there’s no there’s no way for them to turn around they have to back out this street is a dead end as you are aware I’m sure and people are there’s a lot of elderly people on the street walking dogs there are some children so I’m just concerned about the safety of residents living in the area you know have fire trucks potentially moving trucks garbage trucks all backing out onto the street with a lot of people parking and so visibility will be reduced I’m just wondering if there could be any way that some of that space at the back of the property could be utilized as it was for the nursing home for parking yeah I’ll please continue on with any further comments or questions and I’ll ask staff the questions that you bring up that’s really the only question I have then the other my other personal concern for my own property as I I put a fence up at my own expense and some of the trees that would have been boundary that would have been that are the boundary between our properties have landed on 46 Elmwood side and I would just like to suggest that they remain because they’re beautiful to me from my side and I think they can only enhance the property going forward but that’s maybe not a concern for this particular meeting I’m not sure okay thank you any other further comments no not for me thank you thank you very much anyone else that would like to address a committee I’ll ask a clerk if there’s anyone online through the chair there’s no one online okay seeing none then I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM Councillor Frank moved and seconded by Councillor Hopkins and I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you I’m just gonna go to staff and some of the questions that person asked there lodging class has that been eliminated through you mr. Chair yes in the by-law we have only indicated that the permitted use will be an apartment building there is no lodging class house to permitted thank you and and can you outline the plans for garbage pickup with regards to garbage it was proposed to be interior I’m gonna just get the agent to follow up on that that it’s remaining I do want to note that it is a site plan approval it will be addressed to the site plan approval process as well but if I can relate to Casey that it’s gonna remain interior he can confirm that I’ll go to the applicant through you mr.

Chair yes we are going to be incorporating a interior garbage and recycling room on the inside of the building and the bids will be wheeled out picked up by waste collection vehicles on garbage day and wheeled back inside thank you and there is a concern about turn around on that on the dead end street especially for large vehicles have staff comment on that through you mr. Chair this was brought up during the process and it is something that will also be addressed for the site plan approval process thank you one final concern was that the trees on the bordering the neighbors a lot will those trees be protected under this plan dream mr. Chair so I know that Margaret reached out to me and was concerned with regards to this and I connected her and the agent Casey to discuss these matters because I didn’t fully understand them because it was just last week so there wasn’t enough time to really look into the trees I know through the site plan approval process these trees will be looked at but I just I’m gonna have to relate to Casey on the intent of these I believe the remaining though maybe the applicant can shed some light on your what are your plans yes certainly through you mr. Chair the intent is to preserve the the existing trees on site majority of the site works are going to be just on the interior of the existing building with the actual conversion most of the exterior parking area and landscape areas are going to be maintained as they exist today there’s no there’s no plans to really expand on any of the parking areas or infringe on any of the existing landscape areas so through the site plan process a tree preservation plan will be prepared and the only reason to at this point to foresee removal would be if a trees in poor health or presents an invasive species thank you those are the the questions that were raised so now I’ll open it for the committee members to for comments or questions motions Council Frank thank you yes I’m very familiar with this location as it’s in my ward and actually was able to go on a walking tour with some of the residents in the neighborhood to check out the space and so it has been vacant for last year and a half or two years and I did hear a lot from residents similar to what mr.

Ali was saying that there was some worries about you know parking on the street and some increase in traffic although as we can see it would be fairly minimal overall I think it’s great use a re-adaptive use of the site we did have one concern I want to share that was significantly concerned about long-term care in the city and the worry that we are losing beds and my understanding is this location was too small and so actually the company that used to be there moved down to the south end of the city and built a bigger facility but I did want to flag that for people because I think perhaps in our next strap plan whoever is planning to run again once we uncounsel that long-term care homes seem to be a topic at least in this area of my ward as a concern so overall I’m very happy with it I think that the applicant and staff have done a really good job of addressing all the concerns they got lots of emails and we’re able to respond to them so I’m happy to put staff recommendation on the floor and happy to support this infill project. Can I have a seconder for the motion? Councillor Hopkins any discussion? Seeing none I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote the motion carries five to zero. Okay I might hope we could get farther along folks but many members here have been in other committees today it’s been a pretty big day without a break so we’re gonna break for 20 minutes I’m gonna ask committee for their go ahead on that so I’ll need a hand vote on that. It’s not doing how long we will be breaking. 20 minutes yeah so so that’s in pass so we will be back here at ten to seven.

Please turn off the council mike. Okay we’re back we’ll call the meeting back to order and we are on item 3.10 regarding 5.99 and 601 Richmond Street so I look for motion to open the PPM Councillor Hopkins second by Councillor Frank I’ll call the motion. Closing the vote the motion carries five to zero. Technical questions for staff at this time.

Seeing none then I’ll go to the applicant if the applicant is here online please sir give us your name and you have five minutes. Hello Chair thank you. My name is Manish Pardar I am the planner and agent for the file and we’d like to thank the neighborhood association for being here and obviously the Councillors and the person’s interested today. This is an application for a 12-story building.

There was an earlier application for an eight-story building that as you know was approved. We have come back asking for four more stories which equates to about 30 more units. In our opinion we’ve done our homework we’ve put our best foot forward and we feel that we meet all the policies of the London Plan and the applicable urban design guidelines as well as the PPBS of course. In terms of the 12-star proposal we recognize that the zoning that is currently in place which is a bonus zoning would be replaced.

That being said when the bonus zoning is replaced we will maintain all the attributes that were given towards the bonus thing so we are going to still have high quality urban design. We will still have affordable housing units and we will still protect the heritage listed properties that comprise 599 and 601 Richmond Street. In putting this application forward we try to work the best we could with staff. Clearly there is a difference of opinion but we would say that we’ve been consistent in what we’ve put forward.

Two of the comments received from staff had to do with transportation and the footprint and intensification. One of the recommendations in the refusal report was that we do a smaller footprint. It is physically impossible to make this building viable with a smaller footprint and as you will see it is virtually an identical footprint to the eight-star proposal. One of the other comments that was received had to do with the lay by again.

Staff were saying they did not support the lay by but it is again the identical lay by that we presented in the eight-star proposal. So again we are keeping all the heritage resources, all the heritage buildings that are there. We are respecting urban design guidelines and we are providing affordable housing. So again we’re providing two one-bedroom affordable housing units and two two-bedroom affordable housing units.

In recognition of what’s existing we are redeveloping a surface parking lot that is next to drill cools and you know I know that it may be looked upon as you know as maybe a redevelopment that a neighborhood association would not care for but as we know London does need more housing and again we’ve made sure that in doing this proposal that we factored in all considerations towards site suitability and land use compatibility. The Miss Velastra who is here tonight will be speaking as noted in the agenda but I would like to point out that we had gone to the Ontario Land Tribunal for the eight-star proposal. Miss Velastra was the opponent on behalf of the neighborhood but in the decision by the loyalty it was made explicit that Miss Velastra had failed to demonstrate that we had not met the intent of the London Plan or the PPS or applicable guidelines with respect to urban design. So you know we respectfully say you know we would like to be good neighbors we’d like to contribute to a vibrant downtown and you know do our best in helping the city grow inward and upward.

If there are any further questions I’m happy to answer them and thank you for consideration. Thank you. I’ll go to the public now for anyone who would like to speak to the committee on behalf of this item. Please state your name and you have five minutes.

So my name is Miss Velastra I’m with the North Tobit Community Association. I just want to crack something that was said earlier the lay way the cutaway of the boulevard was not approved by staff in the first application and it was removed in the final when it came to council it was not there. Second of all I was a self litigant in that Ontario land tribunal and it was a very so it was very it was a David and Goliath appeal so that needs to be made clear. So in my neighborhood what we know now is that after many years is that high density along transit routes does not necessarily feed a transit system because owning a car is either an economic choice or it’s a personal choice and is not influenced necessarily to the proximity of transit and we also know that high density along transit corridors do not necessarily keep foot traffic out of interior neighborhoods and so what you don’t maybe you don’t know about my neighborhood but we have free overnight parking in my neighborhood from April to the end of October and increasingly that parking is being used by area residents and it’s not it there’s less and less parking available for visitors to Richmond Road which the rationale for that was to promote more alcoholic business to Richmond Road and it gave people the option of leaving their cars overnight so they didn’t drive home but that area is being used by residents now.

But the bigger problem with this development is that it’s not respectful of our neighborhood our neighborhood is an historical neighborhood it is a candidate for historical conservation district it’s not respectful of the policy that’s in place that does talk about main main commercial corridors being respectful of the interior neighborhood. There’s many of us in our neighborhood that consider this development to be brazen and over development of the site it’s not compatible to children of people with families they want to cut away the boulevard which is the only large green space on Central Lab on the street and it doesn’t really offer affordable housing because 80% of market value is not affordable and that conversation is coming up over and over again Olivia Channel Toronto has raised it people are challenging that I think they’re offering three affordable housing at 80% market value most people can’t afford that the most vulnerable people can’t afford that and and it’s really marketing a certain demographic at a certain income and that’s already happening in our neighborhood in our neighborhood a one-bedroom a one-room in a student housing goes for $1,400 so they’re really gouging those people and somehow no one speaks up for them so our neighborhood associations starting to speak out for people and our neighborhood that are being gouged out of housing and there’s just more coming on board because our neighborhood for some reason isn’t really explored by members of council it’s a downtown neighborhood and the feeling is that downtown residents are really pushed aside when it comes to you on the interest of business and and we’re here to tell you that we live here we care about these neighborhoods and we want compatible development that that provides people with affordable housing and is complementary to the historical nature of the neighborhood in Richmond Road and it’s your responsibility to look at the housing problem at all levels and that includes at this level at planning applications and it’s going concerned that the plan for homelessness is really just about cleaning up the downtown for for the sake of business and it’s not really a genuine plan that looks at the overall problem of what’s causing homelessness and a lot of that is an our neighborhood we get a lot of vulnerable people in our neighborhood and you know and we’re really starting to advocate on their behalf so we are the expectation is that it happens here thank you is there anyone else I would like to address committee please give us your name and you have 30 seconds go ahead or five sorry five minutes we’re getting faster on your talk really quickly my name is Patricia Colormore I live at 156 Central Avenue and I am a long-term resident of this neighborhood I do not support West Dell’s application to amend the zoning for the proposed development at 599-601 Richmond Street I was present at a zoom meeting with strict bald Nellie Monet’s engineering consultants the manager of the Starbucks store that fronts onto Richmond Street and a city planner on December the 1st 2021 in which an eight-story 53 unit high-rise with an affordable housing component of four units through bonusing was first proposed the application was subsequently approved by council that 18 months later West Dell is applying for four additional stories to add an additional 36 units as I learned tonight only two affordable housing components in my opinion is bargaining in poor faith it is not just my opinion that the addition of four additional stories to the proposed building at 599-601 Richmond Street is too high city planners stated in a recent report to pack that the overall height of the building should be more quote sympathetic to the existing and planned context of the neighborhood and the proposed amendment represents and again I quote and over intensification of an undersized site in an article in the London Free Press dated February 11th 2023 Jared Safeman chief executive of the London homeowners home home builders association stated all levels of government want to add residential units we’re lacking supply we need more but especially ones that are affordable that West Dell would apply for four additional stories and height with an additional 36 units but offer no affordable housing other than two units now that the bonusing the previous bonusing has been removed as a result of bill 108 in my opinion is unconscionable finally developers need to find compromise with the residents of the neighborhoods in which they build in the same London Free Press article previously referenced Ward 10 counselor Paul van Mirbergen stated we want to get 47,000 homes but we can’t do that when we ride roughshod over neighborhoods it’s a matter of degree of balance and specifically with regard to a proposed development at 489 Upper Queen Street Ward 12 counselor Elizabeth Palosa who supports infill as long as the development fits with the area said I’m looking for a win-win it’s about the right intensification and I really hope that we can find the win-win thank you thank you any other that would like to address the committee please sir give us your name and you have five minutes good evening mr. Chair and committee members my name is Scott Smith system from 154 Central Ave I would like to welcome I would like to start off by saying that I would like to welcome the addition of another residential development proposal for the downtown core I think it’s another clear indication that there is more confidence building in investors investing in projects in the downtown area as far as residential those I would like to address the committee with two points of concerns that I have with respect to the proposed development as the and as we development and intensification of the downtown core process progresses we all know that this will create greater pedestrian and vehicle use with that being said my first question of concern to the committee is as follows how does the city planning policy address sites in the downtown core and major intersections when it comes to improving sight lines for the safety of pedestrians and vehicle traffic this redevelopment presents an opportunity for a long-term solution and what and what examples could counts of committee provide us with past solutions with regarding these impeded sight lines as we all know online shopping personal grocery slash food delivery services uber taxis the that whole concept is here to stay and with no on-site parking proposed for this project and the staff report recommendation to remove the drop off zone my next question to the committee is what is the city’s planning policy regarding the future road allowances for Central Ave between Richmond and Talbot Street and how does the policy address or accommodate the inevitable traffic congestions in front of the proposed development and what and and the close proximity to Richmond Street being that central Ave is only a two lane road at present and is only a two lane road at present I thank you for the opportunity to present and I give back the floor thank you anyway else I’d like to address the committee is there anyone online clerk George please go ahead you have five minutes yes this is George Ferbos I’ve been listening to what’s been talked about earlier this evening and I have no further comments to add thank you okay thank you anyone else I’d like to address committee clerk is anyone else online or in the committee rooms through the chair there’s no one in online or in committee room five okay thank you all right I’ll look for a motion to close the all the participants participation meeting acting Mayor Lewis and seconded by Councilor Hopkins I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero so thank you I’ll put the the item on the floor for committee discussion King Mayor Lewis thank you chair through you I want to address a question to our staff with regard to the lay by because I’m perplexed why we would be not supportive of a lay by at a building with only eight parking spaces and I just looked down the road closer to campus where a much taller building was built and later a lay by had to be retroactively fitted in because of the problems that the building was creating with traffic congestion on Richmond Street so I would like a greater understanding of why staff are not supportive of the lay by in this location go to staff through the chair so layby’s are not supported by transportation within the boulevards as a common practice the Lux was a one-off to resolve that issue there but generally it’s not supportive and it was identified at the original application that we’re not supportive of the lay by acting mayor I appreciate that clarification as to the reasoning I disagree with it but that’s that’s a matter of a counselor’s opinion not not the staff’s opinion and I’m particularly mindful of the fact that as we continue to encourage reduced parking we do have to allow for drop-offs and pickups so I’m new you know whether it was an amendment to the zoning that they have now should they seek it or whether we do something different with this application tonight the policy and the transportation direction that’s that’s not supportive of the layby’s I think needs to be revisited because if we’re going to continue to say 0.75 or 0.5 or in this case much less than 0.5 spots per unit then I think we need to recognize as we heard from a member of the public whether it’s uber eats or skip the dishes or a taxi ride or whatever the the case may be drop off and pickup is the new reality now I recognize also that the London plan was approved prior to the change in reality that the the pandemic brought to these services so I recognize that a staff are following a policy that’s there right now that it’s up to council to go and fix but I think that to my colleagues around the horseshoe I think it’s pretty clear we’re gonna have to fix that one because we’re not going to be able to continue to accommodate reduced or no parking without other opportunities and I see Councilor Hill you’re stuck his hand up so I’m gonna end my comments there and see what other committee members have to say first I’ll go to Councilor Hill thank you very much yes we have had an awful lot of construction this general area and I’m just curious about infrastructure in this area are we going to have any issues with infrastructure for this building and how close to capacity are we in this area I’ll go to staff I assume Council that you’re speaking to sewage infrastructure yes I’ll go to staff on that question Through you Mr. Chair to Councilor Hill here there was nothing identified through the circulation of this application with respect to infrastructure it appears to be that there is adequate sanitary stormwater and water capacity however there will need to be some additional information provided should this proceed to site plan for any subsequent application Councilor Hill thank you very much I’d like to I’d like to I’d like to feel how the committee’s feeling on this I like put a motion forward to approve this and see what committee feels on it and I believe staff already has the wording okay I’ll tip clerk and you confirm that you’ve got the wording for a motion from Councilor Hill and through the chair it should be on your screens thank you so I’ll look for a seconder of Councilor Hill here’s motion acting Mayor Lewis seconds so a motion on the floor let give everyone a chance to refresh your screens and see it and then I’ll open the floor for for discussion acting Mayor Lewis thank you I just want to make sure we we’ve done this in a prior application and I don’t see the language in this alternate motion so through you I know that if the applicant has indicated that they’re going to keep the affordable units as agreed to under the Bonusing Zone regardless but I believe we’ve had language in a prior motion that specifies that to a site plan approval process that and I don’t know if Mr.

Corby or Ms. McNeely might recall the language that we used on a prior application but I just want to make sure that it’s actually there in our direction that includes the affordable housing piece staff to recall I recall that that language I’m wondering if you but I don’t know the wording off hand through the chair if you just give us one second we’ll be able to find it okay great thank you so well I’m gonna give staff an opportunity to I’m not gonna fill a buster but I’m gonna give you a minute to look that up because I I want to speak to the affordable housing piece and it’s been mentioned tonight and it’s been mentioned on numerous applications I think that people need to understand 80% off of average market rent is not 80% off the market rent in that building it’s not even 80% off market rent in that area it’s actually 80% off I’ll ask public to keep their comments to yourself or I’ll have you removed so it’s actually 80% off of the average market rent paid by all renters in the city of London so that means if if you’re in a rent-controlled building because you’ve been there 10 12 15 years and you’re paying $700 that $700 is part of the average market rent calculation so well it is true that a lot of rents a day for a one-bedroom are going in that $17 $1800 range for a new unit that is not 80% off of that number when we are negotiating these 80% of AMRs when you factor in the long-term tenants and the rates that they’re paying in the city council’s actually getting about 50% off of what the market rate is being asked for today so these units may come in at eight or nine hundred dollars or even a thousand dollars I haven’t done the exact math on them but AMR right now is is coming in somewhere in those in those ranges so I really think it’s important to get into just just a little bit of understanding for people that 80 percent of AMR is not 80% off of a new unit it’s 80% off of rent in total so when folks say that it’s not affordable it is still not affordable for somebody on ODSP or low W where the shelter allowance is only $400 a month but for somebody who is working and who just can’t pay the market rent today it is affordable for them and so every unit of those that we get does help somebody reach a housing option that is currently out of reach for them today so I just wanted to share that and hopefully as I’ve expanded on that a little bit staff have had some time to get that language for us okay the clerk did get some language and she is inserting it now into the motion okay if you refresh your screen screen so you can see that in one a bracket A that the wording is there for the affordable housing units so I’ll go to the mover of the motion and indicates that that’s okay I’ll go to the seconder and nods at that that is okay so we’ve got the motions before us look for conversation council Frank thank you yes I want to follow up a bit on that direction specifically in the report I was reading that it looks like given the new lift under our old formula for bonus zones we’d actually be requiring seven units so I was hoping through the chair to the applicant to ask if they’ve been considering increasing the affordable housing units to seven units to meet the the old bonus sounds so I’ll go to the applicant regarding increasing the amount of affordable units based on the increase in ask for the height thank you chair to address the counselor’s question I would I would have to go back and speak to to the management of West Ellen confirm if they are comfortable doing so you know as you know each affordable unit does have a significant cost associated with it and you know we are happy to contribute to the affordable housing supply in the city so I can go back and I will circle back with staff on whether or not that number could be improved outside thank you yes I appreciate that I’m gonna appreciate that discussion it looks like this this motion doesn’t direct to have just four units so it looks like there’s opportunity here to increase that amount I’m also wondering just a bit about green space on the site given that there’s 91% built space on the base of the the building I was hoping to understand a bit more about what kind of green space is there gonna be cash in lieu or is there gonna be maybe green space on the roof or just hoping to hear a little bit more maybe from staff and as well the applicant about that question regarding green space to staff three Mr. Chair because this is an urban type of situation essentially the BDC zone actually doesn’t have very much in terms of green space or requirements for landscape open space I think coverage even for this site is generally 70% for a normal BDC zone in this particular case the applicant is asking for 91% coverage so ultimately know there isn’t much in terms of amenity or green space on the site obviously by design because it obviously is some somewhat more of an urban environment whether the applicant has considered rooftop amenity or something to that effect that maybe something that could be posed to the applicant. Councilor.

Thanks yes do you mind if we ask the applicant if they had considered adding amenity space or green space on the roof? Go ahead the applicant if you considered rooftop green space. Thank you again Chair. To answer the councilor’s question we’ve looked at this building pretty closely you know one of the big reasons we picked the location was the fact that we were across from Victoria Park and that is obviously a huge bonus you know in doing this development there’s really about creating residential use that can enjoy and make maximum use of the downtown and Victoria Park.

We can certainly consider the councilor’s request but I think we already are providing amenity space through a gym I think we have a gym proposes one of the amenity spaces within the building and each unit is going to have its own balcony so we can explore it but I think right now we were thinking primarily Victoria Park and there will be there will be landscaping in the boulevard as my counterpart Nancy Pissado had mentioned because of the area and we are redeveloping a surface parking lot really the green space would be within the bluebird house are thank you those are all my questions those are Hawkins yes Mr. Chair and just following up on Councilor Frank’s question around the affordable housing I heard the applicant hasn’t really considered the seven units as yet and still needs to further have that conversation we’re looking at this motion that basically supports affordable housing so before I prove any motion saying that we’re going to do this I would like to know a little bit more if indeed that is going to be a conversation I do have a question through you chair on Steph’s recommendation when it did speak to the seven units based on the 12 stories it says with the implementation and approval of the proposed new zone the bonus zone would be removed from the site with no requirement for the applicant to provide affordable housing should the applicant determine through site plan that providing the affordable housing unit is no longer financially feasible even with an agreement in place these units could be removed and I my question through you Mr. Chair to staff is if this motion does get approved is that still the case go to snuff through you madam chair I’m sorry through you Mr. Chair to Councillor Hopkins yes that is correct so with the removal of the bonus zone which was a as we all know a previous planning act provision that allowed for essentially locking in a particular building and allowing for certain amount of affordable housing units in exchange for additional height and density that is no longer the case and it is possible that through this process at site plan if the applicant chose to no longer provide affordable housing without the bonus zone there is no way to require or compel those units to be developed.

Councillor. That’s all for now. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Councillor Permall. Thank you, Mr. Chair to the staff. I find a couple of weeks ago we already talked about it and I was asked this question and staff told me that now we will be able to look at the kind of the fund and instead of the affordable units going to the going to the developer’s and asking them for certain financial contribution instead of the affordable units the affordable units I’m a true believer that we need to build more and I believe this supply and demand we are going to get to the more affordable units.

Our biggest issue is deeply affordable units and as was stated here before the affordable units are not going to resolve our situation on the streets homelessness etc but deeply affordable units do. I know there are some members of this committee that keep pushing on the affordable units sorry affordable units the affordable units we are going to wait for six, eight, ten years and who knows what’s going to happen and if there is another changes over the loss etc. So I really would like to reiterate this to the staff please let’s look into it like what we had the CIPs before for year one and going up so at the beginning the developers pay less as the progress is the development they pay more but let’s really look at that option I believe it’s much better than if you are going to talk about four seven units and as the Peter Mayor stated 80% of market it’s not going to resolve our situation the two four six seven units is not going to resolve our situation we really look at it from a different perspective let’s look at a financial fund let’s move this forward and let’s hope again behind the hands of developers build 23 doesn’t allow bonus thing anymore but as we heard from my last developer they are willing to work with us do something for us so I hope our staff can prepare this because I believe that that’s going to resolve our deeply affordable units help our homelessness and affordable units if the supply increases if you keep building the market is going to take care of itself thank you thank you counselor for her thank you and through you so I came here to this meeting for this specific item because of obviously what has been spoken about from delegation from delegates up there and and from other counselors here and I do see that there’s a couple of arguments going on what is affordable 80% AMR is that affordable I would agree I would agree that it’s not that affordable however it is better than what we have right now and this is what we’re fighting for we’re fighting for for 80% AMR which is you know as I said a little bit five seconds ago it’s not that affordable but it is better and we’re just kind of grasping at whatever we can get and we’re putting ourselves in this situation where we’re kind of taking away this affordable these affordable units yes there’s only four in this unit but we’re now putting ourselves at risk by not putting any teeth in the zoning amendment as it is right now to ensure that we get those four affordable units now we’re taking the applicants word the developers word which I believe that they will bring in the four affordable units but the precedent that will set if we change our mind right now who else will come to the table and say hey we did have some work that we did with council a year ago or whatever and we did have some affordable units through the voting provisions but now we want to change our minds and we will give you the affordable units but we do want to change it and that other developer in the future could be more of a bad actor and they may not give us the affordable units so when do we decide when we say yes and when we say no if we say yes now we can’t say no in the future to another developer and we put ourselves at risk with that unknown and that’s an issue for me it also we’ve done the work we’ve civic administration has done so much work last year with with the past council lots of time and resources and people’s energy went into this application and things were approved and deliberations happen right here and now we’re doing it all over again so I’m kind of concerned on how we’re doing this all over again we’ve already put the work in why are we here again so what I would say is from some of the comments that I saw on with the new height of the building coming up to I think seven affordable units now or something like that what I saw on the staff report and what was mentioned seven or eight and the developer is basically saying you know oh yeah we’ll talk about that we’ll come back I feel like that should be in this motion and maybe we should if you know if we do want to make a compromise if we do want to work with this developer we should defer this and have them come back with yeah we can put this in but still it won’t have any teeth so how do we ensure the affordable units you know we need housing yes but what type of housing do we need we need affordable housing we have a road map to 3,000 affordable housing and then we have a pledge for 47,000 houses which one’s more important is is my question I strongly feel that they’re both important but we do need that affordable housing component because you all heard it at the door during your election and you hear it all the time we need more affordable housing so why would we take away our teeth for these four affordable units in this building it’s a bad precedent and I really hope that that would be considered and I would hope that you would not approve this defer this back with the developer come back and have a little bit more concrete plans because you know everything that was listed in the staff recommendation for the density for the height for the floor plate how it’s a little the mass is a little bit too big it’s not a skinny building the shadow component you know those are all I get that and I see why the staff would would say that they’re not recommending this but with the affordable housing component as well that’s that’s the big kicker for me so we’re kind of giving away a lot a lot way more than I would feel comfortable for so I would hope that you would consider that and you would not support this motion as it is right now thank you any other comments or questions over Councillor Hopkins yes just speaking to the new motion that’s in front of this my question I guess through you maybe to the mover is looking at the comment in the motion saying that council is of the opinion that the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS and it conforms to our policies etc I would like to know how that is to the mover Councillor Hill here no sorry I think it’s just oh and now of course my computer shut come on well personally I feel this if we’re not going to do intensification along this this area where are we in the city this is the ideal location for this personally I listen to the arguments and I look like a block down the street and go okay well where was the argument then and to me this is the perfect location I think the Councillor for his opinion he didn’t answer the question you repeat your question for the question is in his motion he refers the council is of the opinion that this motion that is being presented is consistent with the PPS and with our policies and I’d like to know a little bit more how that works how it fits in with the policies elsewhere well to be fair I asked staff to craft this and they put that in at the end because I had not included that so I have not had a chance to look at that sorry I’m sorry let me think about it also so I guess maybe I should go to staff and just get a I see the we have a seconder motion can speak to it if you’d like sure I don’t want to I know I can go to staff and see how this works but I’m really looking at the mover to understand the motion okay Marlos yeah well before I agreed seconded I did review the provincial policy statement and I do think it is consistent because it is efficient use of and management of land and infrastructure Councilor Hill your asked about the water wastewater infrastructure that is in place we have sufficient capacity it is the provision of sufficient housing to meet the changing needs including affordable housing it does create opportunities for economic development job creation because it is right along the Richmond Road corridor it does have appropriate transportation access for transit I address the lay by on the drop-off situation and so the infrastructure needs are accommodated and that is part of the provincial policy statement and I believe it meets those criteria Councilor any other comments or questions Councilor Frank thanks yes I think Councilor Hopkins point out something that I it was kind of bothering me but I was gonna leave it but I am wondering given that staff say that this application is not consistent and then Councillors are saying it is I’d actually be more amenable to supporting this if we take out the second part and just support it knowing that it perhaps doesn’t align with our policies I’m just wondering if the mover and seconder would be interested in that I’ll go to the mover and seconder on that I think Councilor the mover says no and I’ll go to the seconder acting Marlos yeah and and actually if after I’m done chair if if staff on a comment on this that’s fine it it actually starts with not with standing the recommendation of the director because staff are upholding the London plan and other policies that they’re applying here we are saying that we are of a different opinion planning matters can be subjective they are subject to opinion in fact we hear it all the time we have a planner a professionally accredited accredited planner from the developer who says it is consistent we have staff who say it isn’t there there are subjective opinions in interpreting what is consistent with the PPS but I believe and this is where through you chair I’ll defer to staff but this has been consistent with other times when we have not supported the staff recommendation but gone an alternate direction but I believe to be consistent and to meet the requirements that we have to submit under the Planning Act I think that that clause has to be in there but through you chair perhaps staff can confirm with on that or whether it’s factual or not on that statement go staff for comment thank you through the chair yes that’s correct there needs to be a rationale council needs to have a rationale for the the recommendation that they’re putting forward acting mayor that’s I just wanted I hope that’s helpful because I’ve been through this three or four times now so okay just wanted to make sure you’re satisfied Councillor Frank I appreciate that I did not know that this is good information to have for the next couple years yeah I’m I’m landing very on the fence about this entire application at this point so I’m going to decide in the next couple minutes I suppose when they call vote the committee will allow me all weigh in my thoughts or Councillor Hopkins please go ahead if you want to speak for I met as well bringing forward my comments so we’ve already approved an eight-story there are many many reasons why it is consistent with the policies of not only the city but with the provincial policy statement it is in an ideal area intensification that transit area I don’t want to go into the reasons why the eight-story is something that I’m supportive of what I’m not supportive of is that we are taking away our affordability and giving the applicant the extra units and the four stories and we are just doing that here tonight with really any further consideration other than we are consistent with the PPS and our policies that’s to me it does not that’s something that I can’t really just arbitrarily just say yes just do four stories more we’ve heard from the public we’ve heard from staff’s recommendation that refusing we’ve heard the concerns around the portable housing losing that the bottom line to me is it doesn’t fit strictly doesn’t fit and I think we have to measure that not just arbitrarily put in four stories because we are of the opinion it does need the policy statements and our policies and I will not be supporting this motion because I disagree with it completely thank you I’m gonna ask the acting mayor to take the chair please and I will recognize Councillor Layman you know you know I’d say this is an interesting one I guess what I’m looking at I think you go by the strict guidelines London plan maybe not fitting but the London plan was written already many years ago and I think we’ve all commented that’s quickly becoming out of date with our new challenges on housing what this does provide is 30 more units on the same footprint no increase no change to reduction of green space there wasn’t a green space to begin with it’s not affecting that but as the applicant said it steps away from Victoria Park and I look at the community like it’s where that this proposed build is is surrounded by commercial or parking lots there’s no residential up against it around the corner Richmond Kent there’s a I think it’s 30 stories I think over on Talbot there’s a you know a few blocks away a similar high-rise as well there’s high rises in the area so I don’t think it dramatically it changes the the streets gate as far as affordability unfortunately affordability is no longer allowed through bill 23 although it has come up in in applications before the committee but with promises so we are taking on faith that the developer will we’ll go through with that you know there’s no this is what we talk about intensification but without car traffic there’s no increase in parking spaces parking spaces are 8 or something like that like this is designed for people to live and work downtown and walk around or use transit it steps away from Richmond Street transit corridor so I will be supporting the motion thank you Councillor Layman I have no one else on the speakers list at this time and I will return the charity thank you so before I call the vote I’ll look around one more time for anyone who would like to speak to this seeing none I’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries forward to one thank you we’re going to that concludes the scheduled items we’re now moving into items for direction and I’ve got a request for a committee to consider actually going in reverse order with Carfaire Street up first followed by two to one Queen’s Ave and then lastly comprehensive review with London Plan update so I will look for emotions Councillor Hopkins make that motion can I get a seconder on that acting Mayor Lewis so I’ll call that vote that’s okay closing the vote the motion carries thank you so we will be going first with 4.3 followed by 4.2 then 4.1 so 4.3 it’s regarding 39 Carfaire Street we have a request for delegation status from a few folks so I will okay instead of looking for committee approval to hear our delegates on each individual one there are believer three we can do it in one motion if that’s okay with committee I see nods okay so I could have a mover please for that Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins and I will call that vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay the first delegation status request is from Mr. Garde Mr.

Garde are you here I see you so you have five minutes please go ahead sir hi my name is Jeff Garde and I own 39 Carfaire Street I have to first thank all the support from the friends family even past owners young and old this issue about the easement has been discussed with staff since April of 2000 and 22 multiple attempts including a 60-minute presentation with staff all parties involved and followed up with written submissions so some people are saying it’s a surprise that I’m requesting that the easement be removed but I don’t know how because we’ve been talking about it for over a year points of why I want it removed there’s so many I feel personally that it’s a poorly written document with many mistakes many confusing comments and I’m just going to pick out you’ve also seen my presentation I’m going to pick out a couple section 2.8 e planting of tree shrubs and vegetation which states which would would cause damage or negatively affect cultural heritage value or interest so I don’t understand so I asked the last year’s heritage manager and was told that no city approvals required so but I also understand that I’m sure if I was to plant English Ivy that grows up the house or a exterior vine or when we cut down the Magnolia tree out front people are going to complain so do I have to get a permit for that in advance or do I not there’s lots of those in this easement which it’s it’s up for discussion some you do some you don’t it’s not clear the easement itself was presented as being bringing clarity and guidelines for both the city and myself because the easement is between us two parties the owner and the city the easement does not use words like discuss clubber collaborate or mediate it’s all one-sided many of the features in the cultural heritage value or interest are not even based on historical facts the first one which gets a lot of attention the thistle this is on top of the house it’s been removed we had permission from city staff to have it repaired the wood funeral was rotten and we need a new roof that was done last June 2022 and it’s in rating this thistle did not come from Queen Elizabeth this thistle was not given to Archie who served who didn’t serve in the war he was 51 when the war started he was never in the war this was even documented by me reaching out to the royal trust in Britain and confirmed by Barbara Hildesen and you have the documentation in the profile or in the in my presentation stuff so the thistle completely faults let’s move on to the fireplaces because they are the next topic of conversation that city staff keep coming back to the most recent email last week city staff would like a discussion on how we can reinstall the blue mantle and the tiles around while meeting fire code it’s not possible the blue mantle was installed in 1972 which we have verified by previous owners we have documentation by photos written on the wall but we also know it doesn’t meet fire code and there is pictures of it the reason it doesn’t meet fire code is in 1972 the Suzuki brothers built a new fire box drinking the old one but also bringing it into the room not attaching it to the original fire box therefore it pulled apart but by the extension coming into the room we also didn’t meet the hearth requirements you have to have 16 15.75 inches from the face of the firebox to for the hearth which we don’t because it came into the room it can’t be reinstalled like that the original firebox in the west parlor the blue fireplace it is the same as the east parlor one minute the east parlor fireplace has this tile this tile six inches it doesn’t fit the the firebox is only three and three quarters inches this is six inches this was never original it was installed with wooden blocking so the end is I’m I would like a a new easement created the old easement thrown out so we can start frat fresh we need the easement the curling removed so it’s an even playing field it’s not we can’t have a cooperative discussion about this easement 30 seconds when I have no control or no input it’s even a quote from and I actually it has been told to me I’ll wear it this way it’s irrelevant if Jeff is accurate it’s irrelevant if Jeff is accurate it’s all that matters what they said in the easement I have problems with that so I asked the staff or the through the council to through Peck that we remove the current easement and staff is instructed to work with us to create a new collaborative one and that’s your time thank you thank you miss miss Jeanette Otter these ma’am you can I’m sorry about the height can someone help her out just take that right yes right okay thank you thank you you have five minutes Janae Otter 20 Mayfair drive I’m speaking today as a member over many years of architectural Conservancy Ontario London branch ACO is a long relationship with the car freight cottage and going back of course through Julia back who took leadership roles in both the local ACO and also the provincial she was she received the lieutenant governor’s prestigious heritage award for lifetime achievement in 2008 in this in essence she was an acknowledged giant in the heritage sector who approached all challenges with intelligence and integrity I personally remember talking to Julia in the late 90s about this wonderful little cottage that she and Alan had found and we’re hoping to buy it had original heritage features and was in a scenic somewhat secluded neighbourhood across from the Thames River near Warley village most important the cottage came with a rich history through the original owner Robert Carffrey a carpenter who emigrated from Lee Scotland and eventually came to London in 1827 to help build the old courthouse on right out street as long time heritage advocates Julia and Alan Beck lived the retirement dream in this perfect cottage on Carffrey Street what which Julia said about researching and documenting in detail the cottage built around 1880 1860 here’s where my glasses are needed sorry folks the cottage built around 1860 is a fine example of traditional Ontario cottage architecture with a hip roof and white stucco double brick walls resting on a rubberstone foundation the classic simplicity of its three-bay design is enhanced by gothic revival detailing in the steep centre gable with many unique and original features inside in the years following Julia’s death in 2012 Alan met frequently with a small committee from ACO London to ponder and hopefully determine the best possible future for this cottage after his eventual death at these meetings we enjoyed the simple elegance of this home as we met in the recessed leaving living room on the west side in 2017 ACO London commissioned a building assessment to be prepared by our heritage architect John Rutledge over the last weeks it has been more than uncomfortable to hear this precious home discussed and viewed through the unfettered lens of social media as you know the heritage easement agreement between the Beck family heirs and the city of London is not the same but additional to its heritage designation it was designed to emphasize the extreme importance of this particular property and to better assure its future the current owners implicitly bought into this agreement at the time of purchase in June of 2021 at today’s meeting you as a planning committee are being asked to give the new owners permission to violate one part of an agreement to which they gave a cent only two years ago further you are now being asked for approval to scrap the easement agreement altogether and come up with something new this is the same document created with sincerity for thought knowledge and respect for this heritage property by both the city and the Beck family heirs it has been approved by the former latch by the committee former committee and by city council what is the point of creating this kind of agreement if it is now and so soon to be ignored or totally revamped the easement should not be disregarded in this way the new owners need to work with the city as others do to make things work for the property’s future I encourage you as a city committee to vote against both proposals thank you thank you ma’am the next delegate would be Helen Beck hello hi is the mic on I try it again yes hello we can hear you thank you very much you have five minutes please go ahead thank you yes thank you for the opportunity to to speak on behalf of the coffee college’s former owners I’m here with my brothers we entered into the heritage agreement in 19 in 2021 to conserve coffee cottage for future generations we are concerned that granting either a VISTA cards request will not or harm not only coffee cottage but create an unfortunate precedent Mr. God provides no real justification for his request essentially he seeks to ignore or be excused from the terms of this unique heritage easement additionally Mr. God has made this into a very public battle via media and the Facebook in a media interview he stated that the easement is quote based completely on a mystical narrative and on fraud if I’m not being kind we passionately reject this these claims and similar ones made in his submissions to you our comments focus first on some context for the including the significance of us entering into this heritage easement agreement when car-free cottage already had a heritage designation as well as our upfront and full disclosure of the easement agreement second we supplement the well-reasoned staff report by addressing points in Mr. Guard subsequent submissions so on the context our parents practiced what they preach by lovingly maintaining and restoring car-free cottage they entrusted us with finding by this who do likewise to help with this we sought out the additional protections provided in a heritage easement agreement including protecting features whose heritage value is recognized more now than in 1988 when the house was designated for example I recall our mother specifically being concerned about the fireplace mantel’s merited protection and she was an expert in this area in 2021 this heritage easement agreement for private home was unique in London this reflects not only the heritage significance of car-free cottage but our willingness to accept an easement like an easement a heritage easement likely negatively affects market value this saving for the buyer helps us that the additional costs of heritage restoration mr.

God is a real estate agent so he and his partner owner were surely more aware of these factors than most buyers we work collaboratively with the city on the agreement the agreement is between us and the city not between mr. guard and the city future owners do not get to collaborate on the terms of the agreement they must cooperate on its collaboration application sorry the whole point of the agreement is to create an easement it’s called a heritage easement agreement which is registered on title to bind future owners their choice is whether or not to buy the property with the easement we only want to buy us who truly wish to protect heritage and would honor the terms of the easement that’s we disclose right up front before any viewings the draft easement agreement and said it would be put on title before closure moving on to the specifics of the roof request we emphasize that the applicants have frustrated the city’s review provide provide providing only two extreme quotes indeed mr. guard’s own submission to this committee shows who is given more reasonable options for wood or alternative materials visually similar to wood in march and April that’s before the main application to all to the easement however he described declined to pursue these options let alone to provide them to the city and this is that item five of his first submission the estimates he or ballpark figures he got do not seem out of line this type of material is the normal alternative for buildings with the less stringent heritage designation and we have more rationale on the reasonableness that page one of our submission as for mr. guards new submission to remove the heritage emission easement agreement and I view this is outrageous the heritage easement is reasonable and clear and it’s only two years old our submission in the second annex has a point-by-point rebuttal of mr.

guards assertions regarding purported problems with the easement for instance he attacks the easement protecting non-original items insinuating they are either erroneously or deceitfully presented as original when they know such claims are made on the minute printing mr. guards litany complaints precisely the reasons we enter into the heritage agreement get extra protections to conserve this priceless cottage so in conclusion we urge you to take heritage or at least uphold the city’s approval only two years ago and reject both the requests thank you thank you okay that concludes the delegate presentation so now we’ll go to committee for discussion council Frank thank you I’m just wondering I didn’t notice any presentation from staff I’m wondering if staff of any remarks I’d like to make at this point staff are welcome to present we have your report but you’re welcome to to go through it as requested by the council great thank you my name is Michael Gregwell heritage planner with the city of London as noted the subject property is 39 Carfrey Street it’s very significant for its cultural heritage value as noted Carfrey cottage was built circa 1860 by Robert Carfrey who was given the land and compensation for his involvement in the construction of the Middlesex County Courthouse in 2021 prior to the sale as noted by one of the delegations the city and the estate of Alan Beck and Julia Beck entered into a heritage easement agreement with the city in order to further protect the cultural heritage value and the heritage attributes of the property for Londoners the intent of the HIA sorry heritage easement agreement as I understand it was to honor the parent their parents intention of the dwelling be preserved as a resource for the city of London and its residents since the property was sold in 2021 much of the communications with the the current owners have been the complaint and enforcement driven as you know as staff when we receive complaints from the public we must investigate the validity of those complaints and that has really driven many of the concerns and communications to date on this property starting in November of 2021 staff received a complaint about the installation of a new fence on the property staff investigated the complaint confirmed that yes a new and larger fence was installed the HIA the heritage easement agreement does not identify the fence as a heritage attribute of the property but there are specific provisions related to the construction or removal of a fence in May of 2021 another complaint was received about the fence as well as the the plaque heritage plaque on the front of the property being removed eventually staff were able to work retroactively with the applicant to approve the fence as per the terms and conditions of the heritage easement agreement so that issue was resolved moving on to the the thistle in June of 2021 staff were contacted by the applicant in regards to the repair of the roof in the thistle a decorative metal piece as mr. guard showed as normal repairs are contemplated within the heritage easement agreement staff confirmed the approvals were not necessary given that this was a repair that issue was resolved later in June of 2021 staff received complaints regarding images that were posted online from a rental advertisement showing that the fireplaces have been altered the fireplaces are included as noted with as a heritage attribute and protected this is still a an ongoing item that brings us to the application that’s in front of you this evening this is for the roof so the application that that we’ve received right now as the owner has applied seeking permission to remove the existing wood roof and i know it’s it’s described within the heritage easement agreement as a hip to roof clad in wood shingles i’ll also note that the current wood roof in the cottage was installed around 2001 as you can understand the original roof from 1860 would have been long gone by this point in the middle mid 20th century an asphalt shingle roof was installed the current roof would have been installed by the bex in 2001 as a part of a restoration effort when staff evaluate applications proposing replacement options for roofing staff are often seeking information to ensure that all the replacement options are are fairly being considered in particular this is very common for slate roofs when the lifespan is about a hundred years and we’re nearing the end of it we know that often it’s not feasible it’s often cost prohibitive to replace slate with slate sometimes that’s also demonstrated with wood shingles as well or shakes in previous examples staff have worked successfully with the owners to identify composite roof materials that replicate those historic aesthetics but are also fairly priced in this application as noted there was one one quote provided from a Toronto based roofing company upwards of a hundred and fourteen thousand dollars plus hst and then a very a different quote for asphalt shingles at a replacement cost of about twenty three thousand dollars staff have asked for additional additional quotes with regards to wood with regards to composite materials and with regards to asphalt no additional information was provided at the moment staff the application that’s that has been provided to staff to make a recommendation on has really been looking at two different alternatives one a very expensive as cedar or sorry wood roof and then a cheaper much cheaper asphalt replacement at twenty three thousand dollars so despite requesting additional information we just did not receive that additional information as requested so staff absolutely do recognize the existing roof is beyond its life cycle and maybe in need of replacement staff are not opposed to a replacement at this time the application does not include sufficient information for staff to provide a positive recommendation and as such a recommending refusal also note we are encouraged to see that in the submission materials the applicant submitted for the agenda there are some considerations of alternative materials one of which was a product that staff have recommended for approval in the past in some of those promotional materials they note the cost for these products are often one third less over the time of the product lifetime of the product so property specific quote was not provided for this specific one this type of information would have been when useful and crucial for this application I’m happy to take any questions thank you also thank you yes I just want to follow up a bit on the the fencing if you could just maybe walk us through that process as well a little bit more in detail stuff sure through the chair the the fencing is not identified as a heritage attribute and either the heritage designating bylaw or in the heritage easement agreement over there are special provisions included within the the heritage easement agreement that I identify there are approval processes to construct or remove fencing on the property in in the risk the complaint that we received actually the two complaints that were received by the city there was concern that a new fence had been constructed without a proper proper approvals staff didn’t investigate that in determining us that was true and we were able to work retroactively through a heritage alteration permit process to approve the the new fence Pelsar thank you I think those are all my current questions for staff from now I think the thing that I’ve been mulling over this weekend that’s making it more complex is we really have one application before us which is for the roof and that is the one that the community advisory committee on planning has reviewed I also had met with the applicant last weekend and mentioned this that today we are supposed to be discussing the roof we are not it’s gone further and so I do find this almost to be very difficult to have a clear discussion on because we have two different I would say potentially decision-making points given that we are being moved along with lots of information unfortunately we haven’t heard all sides of the story I find we we regarding the easement have not had a report from staff to fully explain perhaps the the disagreements in the easement agreement that the application the current applicant has with staff so I find this difficult to have a coherent opinion on at this point given the lack of information so I’m hoping to put a motion on the floor to try and clarify some items and I have circulated that to the secretary and the the idea being if we are to be making any kind of discussion or or decisions on the easement agreement I personally would like more information and so the motion that I circulate to staff in advance would seek out to resolve these concerns and find more information in order for us to actually have a proper discussion as committee with all the information from all sides of the story so I don’t know if the committee secretary is able to pull that up okay I see that’s up before us so you’re moving that and I’m looking for a seconder for that motion else our outcomes I’ll second it but I’ve got lots of questions fair enough so we’ve got a motion moved and seconded so now I’ll open the floor on discussion go ahead council yeah okay so the recommendation speaks just to the replacement of the roof that’s what I thought we’re here this evening to deal with I know we’ve got this motion that is looking into the easement and I heard from the owner that he does want a new easement and there’s lots of questions around that because we’ve already got an easement and how does that work and what are we doing but I would like to personally just concentrate on the recommendation in front of us which is to I would hope work with the applicant to come up with alternative materials whatever and work with staff to replace the roof I think that so if I’ve got it all wrong maybe through you chair if I can go to staff to just clarify what we’re doing here this evening so I’ll go to staff I think the council is asking whether the motion in front of us is going beyond above and beyond the the roof that was originally you know on the agenda thank you through the chair the the application that is in front of you this evening is is specifically related to the replacement of the roof the application for the replacement of the roofing material I think if I if I haven’t misunderstood the current motion in front of you I think is to address some of the other items that the the applicant has brought up this evening councilor and through you to staff if we’re going to to have further or or look into the heritage easement and to the other challenges that the owner is facing what normally would that process look like if we were going to start a new easement just it’s this the beginning of that conversation if this ocean is approved I’ll go to staff through the chair if the request is to to evaluate an amendment to the east current existing easement agreement or to enter into a new easement agreement that would typically involve a similar process as the as the original easement agreement was entered into and require the consent of both municipal council and the property owner they were involved bringing a report through the the heritage committee and standing committee and council in a similar way that the original easement agreement was entered into and it would involve some level of an amending agreement registered on title in the same manner as the original heritage easement agreement or potentially a new agreement being entered into with the concurrent release of the existing agreement councilor so with this notion in front of us does that address a new easement to staff through the chair my understanding is with the motion in front of us is to have the parties kind of come together and have discussions on the easement agreement and report back to municipal council with respect to that and it’s coped in a specific manner that’s that’s my reading councilor and one last question since i’ve got the mic will it address the recommendation that’s in front of this about the roof go to staff sorry through you chair could could you repeat the question um i could try to paraphrase but i’ll go back to your council yeah i i thought we were just dealing with a recommendation in front of us addressing the roof and the replacement of the roof this recommendation would it also address that or can we make the decision about the roof tonight um and just trying to understand the motion a little bit more and the process going forward through you chair yes we could keep the conversation going with the decision on the roof that is the recommendation before you there’s some additional information that was also provided tonight by the applicant in terms of alternative from that we would we haven’t had that opportunity to to look and investigate that information as it’s new information since when the application is submitted councilor okay uh acting mare los thank you chair so i’m going to break this up into two parts and and be looking to staff and the counselor uh for some inputting and guidance on this as well um so notwithstanding there’s the staff recommendation our current planning and heritage advisory committee regardless of conclusions that were reached by a previous latch have actually said they do not support the staff recommendation and that they support allowing the applicant to go ahead with the hash vault roof and i’m quite aware of of the fact as the applicant has connected with myself as well that right now we have a roof um that has some leaks and staff have said they recognize its past its its life cycle so the longer we wait the more regardless of the material the more expensive the repairs get and the closer we get to demolition by neglect which unfortunately we’ve seen many many times in the city um uh both uh for properties um commercial and residential so i’d like to deal with the roof tonight and and my support is with the advisory committee’s recommendation to approve uh the ash vault shingle roof now i appreciate that we have new information and if there’s an alternate material that the applicant is amenable to that creates the um uh hope i don’t embarrass her but i’m going to have a little fun with her if it creates the heritagey feel um um that uh an alternate material can provide um i’m amenable to that as well so whether it’s an ash vault or or a uh another composite material um if both of the staff and and the property owner can be satisfied with an alternate material i’m prepared to approve an alternate material um i i want a little bit of clarity though uh as well and so i’ll look to staff for some comment on an alternate material um and if the chair will allow i might ask if the if the applicant can also expand on their willingness to adopt an alternate material um but i also want to talk about the schedule c and schedule the parts um and uh i will say council frank i’m going to look to you for a little clarity in terms of some of the items that you want to have addressed here because from the material that i’ve been provided um and i i look at the you know for example um the origins of the thistle um from the archivist and historian of the queen Elizabeth castle of may trust i take that as pretty credible evidence that at least one of the two origin stories for the thistle uh and there are two they can’t both be true well only one can be true um so uh i would like that sorted out um and clarified in the easement um so i would like the easement amended i also uh you know here what the applicant has said about the fireplace and the fireboxes um you know i first started hanging around this building in 2014 i can actually remember minor variances at committee of adjustment where we were asked to um deny because of a heritage attribute but at the same time uh we had um representatives from building code saying you can’t deny because fire code requires us to change this so that it meets modern building codes and fire safety so uh what i heard from the applicant tonight with regard to the fireplace um to me is very compelling uh that there is a problem with the easement if it can’t meet fire code it can’t meet fire code and heritage does not trump safety so um through you chair i’m wondering if i can uh first ask staff perhaps if you’ll indulge a response from both staff and the applicant on a an alternate composite material i’d like to hear on that and then i would like to hear um what the details uh counselor frank is looking to um have discussed in the class in the schedule c and d because i’m supportive of of having this amendment this easement amended i think six months is a reasonable time frame i just want to know what we’re we’re capturing in that from the word counselor’s perspective um so through you chair if i can get the roof answer first okay so let’s go to staff and maybe some possibilities for alternate materials we’re doing a bit of i think was intended for the work in the motion quite frankly but i’ll allow it to get some thought and then i’ll go to mr guard to see um you know his thoughts on that we’re dipping our toe a bit into that water but so um but i’ll uh please go ahead thank you through the chair uh staff are are absolutely willing to to listen to uh or explore different opportunities for alternative materials um there are i think two two materials that were presented in the additional information for the agenda this evening um one of the two materials has been previously approved for heritage alteration permit from a wood shingle roof or a wood shake roof to a composite i think it’s a rubber material but not mistaken um the the information that was provided did provide some just general promotional information related to costs but not a hard specific cost or a real quote that’d be usable so it’s difficult to determine whether that’s a feasible quote or not but certainly in terms of a material that achieves the aesthetic appearance qualities of the existing wood roof yes that’s absolutely a material that that staff will be willing to to work with okay i’m going to go to mr guard comments there mr guard about uh alternate materials other than wood or ashwald like where’s that the between so my comment is we currently have a roof with two layers of ashwald shingles and a layer of pine shakes the roofing system is not only pine it’s also the two layers of ashwald and the reason that’s important is because the pine we come to find out was deteriorated when we purchase the property and it’s actually the ashwald shingles below that is keeping most of the water out of the house so i’m not asking for upgraded material as i feel that some parties are i’m asking to replace my roof which is ashwald with ashwald i don’t want to spend seventy thousand dollars on a synthetic roof i don’t want to spend a hundred and thirty thousand for a new cedar shingle roof that’s not i i don’t really believe that is fair when we have a ashwald roof thank you i’m going to go back to the acting mayor because this i think changes the dynamic and maybe goes to maybe the reasoning for your question i don’t know maybe you’re learning stuff as we go so please go ahead thank you well it does help my questioning to some degree because i come back to our advisory committee recommendation and you know i am the first one colleagues know i’m the first one to question recommendations from advisory committees but i think that they’ve they’ve brought forward a recommendation that i can be supportive of here because there there is and i’ve seen the photos so there are ashwald shingles under the wood shaker there there’s no question about that and i think it is fair to allow ashwald to be replaced with ashwald so i i would like to approve the roof tonight so that we don’t have continued damage to this property i do think that there are there are a number of of troubling items as i’ve outlined with the conditions that are in the easements and they may be just simply a result of the information at the time the easement was brought into consideration were believed to be valid and have since you know new information does surface and and what was presumed to be something that was heritage can turn out to be something that was a more recent renovation to a property so i i want to go back through you chair to the counselor with regard to schedule c and d i’d just like some a little bit more clarity from her on her intent to those particular clauses in her motion um i’m going to go to council frank and councilor hopkins i’ll i’ll let you weigh in as well but uh first i’ll go to council for sure yes um i think that we’ve all probably received some communication regarding the um various discrepancies between staff and the applicant on this item um and my motion is hoping that staff and the applicant can come together and discuss the the various items i don’t have a limitation a minimum or maximum anything on c or d is on the list um but to discuss you know what is your understanding of it is there anything that you’re playing on changing on it should we have this change some of the wording does that make sense um essentially i think i’d really like them to be able to work in a collaborative way that is my goal um and if there is some things that maybe color change size location um need to be amended i’m not necessarily against it but i i don’t um think that we can just throw out this easement as is given there’s quite a lot of um items listed for for that are attributes that contribute to it so you know i don’t want to lose some things from it when when maybe it’s just one or two items that are really the the stickler so my goal is more just to keep the conversation between staff and the applicant going to um ensure there is understanding between the two on various items councilor hawkins yeah just following up on councilor frank’s comments um i do appreciate this motion to me it is about the applicant and staff working together i hear the mayor’s acting mayor’s concerns are around a leaky roof i’ve got one that needs to be fixed right now as well um but i would hope that staff would work with the applicant sooner than later when it comes to the roof but i find this motion sort of dealing with a number of concerns before throwing out the easement which will have a further conversation so i will be supporting it uh i can bear those uh thank you so i i did want to come back after council frank’s comments because i appreciate um actually i liked the fact that you want to keep it open-ended and let’s let’s review all the points of contention uh and come back with an amended easement at some future date um it is certainly easier to amend um then to start back at square one and and hope you capture everything so i appreciate that i don’t know whether the councilor will uh deem this to be friendly or not um but i’d like to amend her motion uh that we approve the installation of asphalt shingles or an alternate composite because mr. guard has options although if if asphalt is the route he chooses to go i’m okay with that um so i’d like to move uh i’d like to amend it to approve the installation of the asphalt shingles uh and then the rest of the council’s motion direct staff to work with the applicant to resolve the outstanding concerns schedule cnd heritage easement agreement bring back an update in six months on the status um it being noted that staff are to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from council on the heritage easement agreement um and i think that that’s really important because uh i do know that the applicant was um served with a letter that provided a deadline in august um if we are giving six months for a discussion on the easement then we i think do have to suspend the enforcement until that discussion takes place so uh i support everything the councilor says but i would like to include an amendment that approves the installation of the asphalt tonight if she’s amenable to that if not i’ll try it as a separate motion um councilor i’ll go to you to see if you would accept that as a friendly amendment i think that there are counselors among us who might want to vote it separately so at this point just for that reason i think i’m not going to accept it as friendly sorry okay uh acting mayor looks like um we’ll have to treat that as a separate amendment that we will vote on uh do you have a seconder for that amendment council hillier has seconded so i’ll open the floor for uh for that discussion on the amendment only if the acting mayor can take the chair again so i can speak to this uh sure i just want to before you you speak to this councilor before you turn over the chair um process wise um i had suggested i’ll introduce it as a separate amendment if necessary and then you had talked about it as an amendment to councilor frank’s motion i just want to be clear which my understanding and the clerk can correct me is that we councilor frank was not willing to treat this as a friendly amendment so that we will treat this amendment on its own that we will now vote on separately right okay gotcha so that’s that’s where we’re operating so we vote on the amendment first and then the main motion as an amendment or or the original if they might yeah they might separate it out like that’s where i yep i see i think the clerk’s agreement so i want i want to wait to see if anyone wanted to speak to the amendment before i turned in so i’ll take that back if you don’t mind it or i’ll just leave the chair with you okay i will i will recognize councilor layman and then i’ve got councilor hopkins after that okay so this is a tricky one and just i feel like i’m a judge and you know csi with proof and and um exhibiting exhibit b um my feeling is that um the back family did a terrific job in restoring this to the how they felt it was of their time or the time of you know when it was built um however that gets the question in my mind uh when you do an easement do you go based on the renovations or do you go based on the original building itself um and when we’re dealing being that we’re dealing with the roof uh you know i see two layers of asphalt roof and then a shake roof put on or pine roof put on by um the renovation prior to the easement uh the question in my mind is if a similar home uh in the area uh built in a similar time period that had a um an asphalt roof and it was leaking would we require and it was a doesn’t inheritage would we require a pine roof would roof to replace that asphalt so i want to ask staff that question or would we allow the asphalt roof to be replaced well let’s ask staff that question sorry chair through you thank you just through the chair just uh um if i can just ask a clarifying question are you asking whether a property with a an asphalt roof i guess it comes down to a matter of of heritage status i’m just i’m i’m a little unsure on what the question like how would how it’s specifically related to heritage status so my hypothetical question is this through your chair um if there was a similar property with similar heritage status in the similar area but it didn’t have a pine roof it had a national roof like this particular property had before the pine roof was installed because it’s heritage would the homeowner be required to put a pine roof on it instead of the asphalt roof and we’ll go back to staff thank you and thank you for the the clarification um to kind of speaking in i guess in hypotheticals in in a heritage conservation district we can use that as an example um most of our heritage conservation districts the heritage conservation district plan outlines that if a a change in roof material and for most of them would require a heritage alteration permit now this doesn’t specifically say it needs to be restored back to a specific material or time frame it would come down to a matter of what’s what’s protected so if a specific by-law or easement agreement specifies a certain material that’s what’s protected that would be that the kind of the baseline if you will for let’s using the example of of slate similar approach for a heritage conservation district property if a slate roof is proposed for replacement we would use the same approach we would look at okay is it is it feasible to replace it with the same material if not are there alternatives and then we would explore those options i’m hoping that that gets to your answer to your question thank you mr.

Grigal Councillor Layman does that help you process that kind of not but i guess where i’m getting at is this um here we have a situation where there’s a heritage property um the original heritage designation dealt with the shape of the roof which is not being altered um an easement was sought after renovations were done which added a different type of roof material um and it wouldn’t be so much of a question i guess if the cost wasn’t so considerable i mean this is a considerable differential cost between a national roof and a fine fine roof or alternatives um so you know it’s it’s it’s a judgment call but uh in this particular case uh you know i will i will support the the amendment because it seems like a a reasonable thing for me to support for those reasons uh thank you Councillor Layman i’m going to return the chair to you noting we have Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Hill here on the speakers list thank you how about a Councillor Hopkins yeah i won’t be supporting the the motion i understand where it’s coming from i will be supporting the original motion which i think would have got us there and in here a committee if i’m not an expert when it comes to ruse heritage um i i would prefer that these decisions would would remain with staff and the applicant so um that’s why i won’t be supporting it i’ll go to Councillor Hill here yes thank you i appreciate the acting mayor’s position and i’m just curious has any consideration been given in looking into asphalt shingles that look from the street like the original white pine shingles because we’re looking at a white pine roof that a quick search online i couldn’t find white pine shingles and we have two layers of asphalt so if if we’re going to be going down all the way down three layers of roofing can we get something that at least looks similar but is cost effective because i cannot see forcing someone to spend almost five times when it costs for a regular roof but i would like to see something that does fit with what we had before has that been considered looking at something that was similar to what was before but in the asphalt i’ll go to staff with that question thank you uh through the chair uh the the application materials that were submitted did not look at um details related to the uh the appearance of the shingles the only information that was submitted with the application was the the wood roof at 114 plus hst 114 000 plus hst and then the the asphalt shingle estimate as well so those details were not submitted to to the city thank you Councillor Stevenson thank you i’m not able to vote at this committee but at council i would be supporting the amendment uh per the acting mayor only in council eight months but there’s been a few heritage files that have come before us that the general public doesn’t seem to find reasonable or have common sense around them and i think it’s really important that we are serving the public that we are serving them in terms of what we’re maintaining in terms of heritage and it’s something that i’d like us to explore going forward to make sure that we are you know serving the general public when we’re doing this kind of thing there’s challenging economic times um i don’t want to see people not want to purchase heritage properties or not want to renovate um because of maybe policies that aren’t serving so i i look forward to supporting this amendment at council thank you uh Councillor Frank thank you yes um following up on Councillor Stevenson’s comments um i was wondering if heritage could tell me on average how many um what are the heritage alteration permits that you receive a month how many you approve how many you refuse i know in the last couple months i agree with Councillor Stevenson we’ve seen um i think at least one refusal perhaps a month or every other month and i just want to seek some clarity um as to if that’s a full and accurate picture of what you guys are are working on i’ll go staff thank you through the chair um the the applicant the heritage alteration permit applications that typically come through community advisory committee i’m planning to planning environment committee and then for council decision um meet the terms and conditions under the delegated authority by-law for referral to council so uh you you don’t often see all of the approvals that uh like our process for heritage alteration permits uh the delegated authority by-law has really allowed for heritage alteration permits to be processed uh by staff administratively um since about 2015 there are uh conditions for referral to council generally they kind of fit into three different boxes one whether it’s a complex uh application this is typically a new building within a heritage conservation district that always comes for council decision uh refusals come for council decision and then hops where uh heritage alteration permits where uh the work has already started without prior approval uh those are really the three the three can uh referral kind of conditions in terms of numbers approximately we’re processing about a hundred heritage alterations permits per year right now give or take we saw a bit of a dip in 2020 and 2021 just as a result of of covid um but last year uh looking at the numbers we processed 103 heritage alteration permits 86 percent of them were administratively processed through delegated authority so those are ones that uh staff absolutely are willing to support um so of those 103-14 were referred to council only five of those were recommended for refusal so uh refusal recommendations are pretty uh pretty small in terms of numbers when they’re coming to this committee and to council uh for the year to date for 2023 we’ve processed uh if you include this application 56 heritage alteration permit applications including this one only that’s of only two recommendations for refusal so uh about a 90 percent approval uh rating from staff at this point approval recommendation not rating oh sorry thank you yes i was just hoping to get those numbers because i know as a new um member on this committee um i had seen i think a couple refusals and thought perhaps that was all we’re doing at heritage but it sounds like 91 percent approval is not so bad um so that is why i’m very interested in having my motion move forward um just because i would like to see um an amicable resolution to this issue and have staff approve and and be able to work with the applicant on that any other comments or questions before we vote on the amendment i’m gonna ask the hacking mayor take the chair again i want one more comment here um okay uh i will uh take the chair and i recognize councilor layman thank you um it was mentioned that we’re not heritage experts i know we are not um and i’d forgotten include this uh remark when i was uh speaking um the fact is that the heritage advisory committee um recommended against uh the staff recommendation um they are the experts in heritage and um you know in in this particular case uh i’m going that’s a it’s another factor that i forgot to bring up because again it’s a very gray area here and we’re acting to make a judgment call so i just wanted to get that that on the record thank you councilor layman i’ll return the chair to you thank you uh councilor frank thank you you reminded me of one more comment um i was wondering as staff because i wasn’t able to make that planning meeting um if you could um just review maybe when it came to this moment i think that there was a failed motion and then the second motion went i’m just wondering if um staff who are there would be able to relay to us since again as we noted a little bit earlier by council purble um the minutes don’t kind of contain context they contain the motion the approval and and um or refusal so i’m just wondering if staff could outline us through um kind of maybe coals notes of what happened at the advisory committee and and how the vote went for the uh the final one that we received so i’ll go staff on that sure thank you through the chair um the there was a uh a motion on the floor at at cacp to support the staff recommendation at first there was good discussion i should say on both sides first um i would say that the the attitude amongst the uh the committee members was pretty split i think there was a a good kind of consensus between both sides of of the discussion uh the first recommendation or motion to support the staff recommendation field i believe if i’m not mistaken it was four to six it was at a close number something in that range uh and then on the opposite to uh refuse the staff recommendation or disagree with the staff recommendation it was about the same but the opposite so it was a pretty close vote from from my recollection thank you councilor thanks yes i think maybe following up on council purples um comments earlier i think maybe moving forward it would be nice to choss um clerks about having uh descriptions of those resolutions because sometimes i think if we just get the the motion of what was approved we don’t see the context that it was a close vote any other comments before i call the vote okay we have oh i’m going to talk to the clerk for second just okay we’ve got an amendment on the floor movements miss westlake power you have uh your hand up i’ll go to you thank you through the chair can you hear me okay i’ve had to switch my audio we can hear you fine perfect okay i just wanted to point out for the committee’s information that um the community advisory committee on planning is not the decision maker on this and none of our advisory committees uh we don’t record the votes at any of those advisory committees it’s a simple majority to pass any motion of recommendation that they may have um i uh through the chair and with your indulgence i will indicate um i understand that there’s also uh perhaps members of the community advisory committee on planning in the gallery i don’t know if you wanted any additional context from any of the members who may have been at the meeting thank you miss westlake power um being that the votes were um or the the discussion advisory committee process was raised i think that that’s good information to have um so i’ll go back to the committee um before i call a vote acting mayor lewis uh thank you chair uh just through you uh if the committee is amenable i and i saw mr wallis waving at somebody across uh the gallery um so if we do have members from the advisory committee would either one like to make a okay he’s waving me off so um i will listen to him and just let you call the vote the committee members are welcome to ask you know who they want to but i’m i’m cautious in the committee we could go down the second debate here uh you know in the gallery between maybe opposing views i don’t know um just opposing um it’s up to it’s up to committee members i’ll i’ll leave it at your hands okay i will call the vote the clerk the clerk will read the amendment so the motion reads motion to direct staff to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding concerns with scheduled c pardon me schedule c and schedule d of the heritage easement agreement and bring back an update within six months on the status it being noted that staff are directed to suspend enforcement measures on the existing fireplace matters until further direction from council on the heritage easement agreement that the motion be amended to include the following as a new part b b that the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles or an alternate composite material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 carbury street okay i want to confer confirmation that we are just voting on the amendment not the motion as amended we never it was not a friendly amendment it was uh sorry folks we’re uh we will get the um motion on the floor it will just be on the amendment clerk if you could read what we are voting on please that the motion be amended to include the following as a new part b b that the asphalt or sorry that the heritage alteration application to install asphalt shingles for an alternate compost posit material for the roof replacement of the property located at 39 carbury street i think the words be approved so refresher screens take a look at the motion and i’m putting that on the floor now to vote closing the vote the motion passes three to two okay so now we have a motion that has been amended that we can deal with separately as i suspect uh the mover and the seconder would want to do if that’s correct yes yes okay so clerk if we could um separate uh that motion into two parts that a and a b possible okay so we have the motion on the floor it’s split into two parts to allow voting a and b being the amendment before i call that vote any final uh discussion seeing none so i will call the vote now uh just on a vote on b okay we’re going to have two separate votes one on the original motion then we’re going to vote on the amendment so the clerk has the wording up for the uh third a which is the original motion i’m going to call the vote on that closing the vote the motion carries five to zero we’ll be opening the vote on part b which is the amendment call that vote closing the vote the motion carries three to two thank you uh we will now be moving on to four point two is two two twenty one queens have i’ll look for a motion to open the public part oh no we don’t have a public partition patient and sorry um we do have a request for a delegation from the applicant so i’ll look for a motion to approve that delegation committee um acting mare louis uh makes the motion kind of a seconder please counselor hillier seconds i now call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero thank you so uh i’ll look to the applicant um please uh give us your name and do you have five minutes uh good evening my name is Alex hossen and i’m here with you on behalf of the applicant and owner of the land sift and properties um i’d first like to thank members of committee for their time and reconsideration of the application this evening um we have reviewed the staff’s report and we’re in favor of the recommendation to grant extension of the temporary use zone for a period of three years uh we have prepared a draft conceptual landscape enhancement plan which has been added to the agenda this evening um to demonstrate how the streetscape could be improved through the addition of plantings along the frontage of the lands it would be sifton’s preference to maintain the existing number of parking spaces in order to uphold our tenant obligations but we are committed to working with staff uh to provide a landscape enhancement plan that is tax satisfactory to both parties uh during the three-year temporary zone extension period thank you thank you i’ll open the floor for uh discussion etc with the committee acting mayor lewis uh thank you i will i’m prepared to move the staff recommendation uh i know i didn’t support this the last time around i supported the one year and then i changed my mind at council i really appreciate the applicant providing a conceptualized enhanced landscape that helps me get there i also appreciate the communications we had between the last time this was that committee and then got to council and to come back in terms of these spaces being fully leased um not just not for customer use but keyhole use for employees uh and the importance of maintaining um those spaces so that employees can continue to come to work um so uh this gets me to where i hoped we would get to when the one year kind of expired and we’re there months early so happy to support this this time thank you and i’ve got a second from counselor hillier we got motion moving in second i’ll open the floor for discussion councilor hopkins i’ll be supporting it um i do have a question through you to um staff as we try to reduce parking lots temporary parking lots in our uh city um i would um encourage uh the just staff to work with the developer to see how we can um end some of these temporary parking lots uh i i know uh there are a number of other ones we should uh have some consistency when we have these temporary parking lots come to our planning committee and we have to make these decisions so i’m really encouraging not only that we have reduced lots at this side but looking at other temporary parking lots that come forward how we can do uh how we can reduce the uh temporary um placement uh we we must be able to do a better job um in dealing with other developers so i’m getting really tired all of a sudden and my mind is just starting to to wander but it is really important i recall the letter from the developer it we we shouldn’t signal um just one developer we should signal all the developers uh in that whole these temporary licenses for the parking lots to do something um about uh reducing them or getting rid of them so i would really like to encourage that to continue those conversations see how we can implement them in our policies as well thank you oh console i’m glad you’re i’m not the only one facing fatigue at this late hour it’s been a long day uh counselor frank was that uh expression of supporter did you want to speak to this okay any other uh comments or questions seen none uh then i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries forward to one okay we are moving on to uh 4.1 our last item for direction dealing with the comprehensive review of the London Plan update um another ripple from uh bill 23 changes i think before there is a request for delegation status before i go to that uh i’d like to go to staff for just a verbal presentation on why this is before us and uh a brief outline of what this entails thank you uh through the chair so the purpose of this report is to seek counsel’s direction on the comprehensive review given recent changes to the provincial legislation and the draft new provincial planning statement that was released in April um there’s an added presentation as well this effect um and it’s also the second purpose is to initiate the industrial lands review and specifically the re-designation review whereby landowners can request properties be evaluated for their potential to be considered for re-designation to other non-industrial place types um if we look to the timing of the new draft pps uh it was the day before easter that it was released by the province and it was the day after that long weekend that the terms of reference for the comprehensive review came to this council or to this planning committee so uh it does include the terms of reference were then based on the 2020 pps um which is the predecessor to this draft new one and there are significant changes to growth management policy in the new draft pps uh which would require amendments to the terms of reference um comprehensive review it was initiated primarily to discuss and address the land need question around land supply and the ability to accommodate projected growth and employment and housing um but the comprehensive review was initiated under section 26 of the planning act uh and in section 26 one of the requirements is to have consistency with policy statements that are issued by the province so by having a new draft pps there will be uh some substantive changes there’s many changes that came out of it one of them being the change of the definition of employment land um whereby the commercial industrial place type would need a fairly extensive review um but it’s not limited to that either there’s there’s the length of a plan and other definitions as well um and the review then being issued under section 26 uh if it is a comprehensive review it would extend the timeline to get to the land need assessment result uh so the report is recommending to close the comprehensive review that was issued under section 26 to initiate a new official plan amendment consistent with the new policy framework once that is finalized by the province but in the meantime continue the land need assessment work that is ongoing right now as identified in the terms of reference uh and the benefits of this approach are to intended to focus staff resources on completion of the land need assessment which supports the housing pledge and housing supply initiatives it reduces the overall timeline for completing the land needs assessment by decoupling it from those other policy reviews that will be required and then reducing the work that may be invalidated by the new pps um and then as the second element is initiating industrial land review uh that is again for re-designation and taking in requests from land owners to have their properties evaluated preliminary evaluation criteria are appended to the report with you this evening um that process does have an impact on the land supply and the land need study because any re-designated lands could be considered for housing or other land uses and a future public meeting would be held to consider those re-designations and staff recommendations for properties to potentially be changed to other land uses and happy to answer any questions you may have thank you uh thank you um i’ll go to counsel frank thank you yes um i was just curious so i noticed that there are a bunch of amendments and are there any delegation statuses on this so they’re just yes okay maybe i’ll let them go first then my result i was going to just yeah okay um i was going to ask committee if they’d like to hear from the delegate before we go so all of our motion counselor Hopkins second by counselor frank to approve the delegate i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero mr wallace your dedication to ldi has not gone gone unnoticed for you to be here at ten after nine well i do appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and i have a longer speech plan but uh i think i’m going to narrow it down first of all uh i want to thank we want to thank staff for bringing forward to us at an earlier stage not just like last week given us the heads up that they are changing the they’re making a recommended change from the uh comprehensive study to the uh our focus uh land needs assessment piece um uh taking into account what they believe in what we believe in what we know is going to be true of what’s actually going to get passed in the pps in the fall so they’re they’re taking a very progressive uh proactive approach to this and uh we appreciate the adds up being that to be uh honest you know it’s our industry that will be the uh main uh just it’ll be the discussion of our industry uh over the next year i’m here about part one not about the industrial review in terms of uh flipping those lands to uh different use uh we you may hear comments from me on that in another public meetings and so on going forward but just um we uh we read the report over we highlighted lots of things at the end of the day the benefits for closing the comp review are well articulated in the report we agree with everything that’s actually in here on what uh uh the approach um and you know there are going to be changes a minimum of 25 years just for example the removal of identifying a built area boundary there’s a number of things that are in here it doesn’t uh uh we’re working with staff everything is on the table for discussion we’re working closely with them on on the uh land needs review which is already uh well underway under the housing supply committee um it’s been a very good relationship so far and uh we look forward to the results our concern was things we get stopped and then we’d be here this time next year and getting things up and running again and so uh you should know that your staff are taking a much more proactive approach to this um identifying that there is a need for all forms of housing uh within the committee over the next decade and that’s it for tonight and wakey wakey thank you mr wals and i echo your uh comments there um thank you um because i think we’re all the same page here uh we have a big target and i appreciate uh your department uh for uh doing uh identifying critical paths uh to get there and it helps us uh do our job so now i would go to council frank thank you um that didn’t answer my question so uh but that’s okay mine or more for i’m curious as to why we are and i’m happy to do this like flop uh switching industrial and to potentially residential land i’ve got kind of a two-parter one if we do this do they just don’t have to do a zba because then it’ll already be deemed residential um and two how come we don’t look at like other zoning um levels i’m also running out of words zoning classification thank you classifications other than industrial to open them up to residential like why isn’t this kind of like a feast for all whatever you want to be residential if it’s within reason let’s give her um so that’s my question two-parter i’ll go to staff on the thank you give her part uh so through the chair under the previous pps um the main means by which you could uh redesignate was during the conference review um and then it tied into your overall land supply um the broader we make the scope of this the longer it may take um the definition as well as the definition in the new draft pps for employment areas changed so it used to be that um you know other related types of uses could exist now it’s only if they are secondary to the industrial so for example commercial industrial which has a lot of standalone commercial and standalone office or institutional buildings um would no longer be permitted under that definition so as long as that goes through in the final version that gets approved um that place type in particular is going to need a much closer look so policies and mapping will need to be updated for that one um as part of a official plan review we certainly the city certainly can look at changing any land uses um but this was a matter of uh it was only within the last five years that the London plan was approved uh it does take time for lands to develop um it’s only these sorts of legislative changes that might be the that was the thinking behind why we might be considering these rather than all lands but if there are issues that are brought to our attention during the official plan review they could be considered as well but again it’s also trying to scope it such that we can get to the land need result for the supply question master counselor thank you so then hypothetically if somebody did come to you and they didn’t have industrial and it’s something else commercial um and if it was reasonable would you then consider converting to residential without uh zoning by-law amendment as part of the land needs assessment sorry i don’t know if i got achieved full clarity there uh stuff so through the chair so it would be an official plan amendment one plan amendment rather than a zoning amendment this isn’t addressing the zoning um if it is a one-off um then they they would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis um this is kind of a broader city-wide policy issue related to a change in the legislation um but we are open to hearing from the public about concerns so if there is something that’s broader or repeating pattern of an issue then it may be something that would be addressed at a broader scale like this rather than on a case-by-case basis i’m sorry thanks i don’t know if i perfectly understand but i’m okay with that my second part of this question was um another one oh the other issues that people have identified about the comp review that people wanted to make changes to the um official plan since we’re kind of putting this all in hold and just doing the land needs assessment are those issues that people had are we going to look at those later just at a no case-by-case like it might come as like one item on a peck agenda or how will we resolve issues that people have brought to us we’ll go staff through the chair so um the comprehensive view is no longer actually a defined term in the draft new pps so there’s no guidance as to what it actually would include um but the uh the section 26 sorry the the official plan amendment that that needs to be done is within the first 10 years of the plan being approved so by january of 2027 uh staff would have to bring back a new official plan amendment and with a new scope of work we have to identify um but there’s nothing preventing um you know members of the public speaking to staff or other specific issues or other official plan amendments in the meantime as well if there are issues that need addressed sooner but this is just a matter of putting the the review on pause so that the land needs can be decoupled from other policy reviews um and then a new plan of work will be brought back to council based on the new policy regime in the fall once we know what that is councilor thank you yes i think that seems wise um and i think that maybe we won’t ask you guys to look at anything else for the next year while you finish all the other stuff you’re working on so thank you for streamlining this thank you i’ll go to harking mare louis so then to councilor hockens uh thank you i’ll remind councilor franca that the next time she wants to refer something to staff for uh review um uh first of all um if if that was the short version i’m glad that we didn’t ask mr wallis to speak on uh the prior matter um uh but i appreciate his input there um a question for you uh through you chair uh to our staff um there’s a couple of communications on uh the added um from a jay flemming uh the staff aware who this person is i he seems like he’s oh there he is up in the gallery i just wanted to acknowledge our prior city planner mr flemming uh is here tonight um thank you for the communications on here i know he and i have actually had a discussion about uh the Kellogg’s area um in very preliminary preliminary um what could be seen there in the future and i’m quite excited by that and so i’m i’m glad to see that communication is here um but i do in all seriousness um i have a question for staff with regard to this um and actually it was mr flammings letter that sort of triggered this for me earlier today um when we were talking about um industrial land place types are we including um that communication out to those areas that are designated light industrial um and not just the the heavier industrial and the reason i ask is similar to the Kellogg’s there are a couple of pockets in ward two um that are designated for light industrial that are honestly they’ve been vacant properties light industrial for a long time uh i know at least one applicant um is going to be coming looking for a change to residential but i think there may be some others there and not only are they a change from light industrial to residential but uh at least in in one of the two where i’m aware of there being some interest um it’s infill as well so will this be covering light industrial as well as general industrial so good stuff uh through the chair so um this is intended to be circulated and and made known and any landowner can request their property be evaluated um the evaluation is going to be based on both uh it’s it’s continued use as an industrial use and then it’s potential for other uses so if it is a heavier industrial there may be more brownfield types of conditions or it may be that uh if it’s it you don’t want it to sterilize existing industrial operations if one or two properties wish to change and they’re surrounded by active ones but um staff are open to receiving requests from any type of industrial use so that uh i guess actually answers the part b of that question we’ve got a number of added communications on the agenda tonight regarding areas that people want considered so you don’t need direction from us as long as those communications or receive staff will take them from there so that’s and i see everybody’s heads nodding on that so i hope they’re not nodding off to sleep that they’re just nodding in agreement um so uh final um i guess request then uh through you chair is can that notice um please be circulated to council as well so that if uh property owners in our awards um may have some interest in in reaching out that we can share that information with them too uh staff through the chair yes we can circulate yes i see counselor robin has joined us because she has nothing there to do at ten o’clock in the evening um go ahead counselor thank you and through you can you hear me okay uh sorry do you want to go back you go back to your members of committee and i’m going to say thank you i um what’s rude there and uh then see counselor hopkins i’m going to go to counselor hopkins uh first fetal mind counselor um let’s go ahead i apologize uh no need to apologize i would have been quite okay with counselor bomb i went ahead i just wanted to follow up on acting there is uh comments acknowledging our former uh city planner john flemming it’s so good to see you here again uh and really appreciate the comments coming from the stakeholders in the community we’ve got quite a package here and it’s really important that we understand what’s going on uh thoughts comments coming um from the stakeholders i understand we need to do this comprehensive review it is separate to the comprehensive rezoning that is going on too i just wanted i see lots of nodding heads which is really important so i understand staff have a lot of work going on um so uh i do have a quick question um through uh mr chair about the comprehensive review being done completed before we look at the urban growth boundary review or is that parallel conjunction just what’s the process like good stuff comment and the timing of the too yeah uh through the chair so the land need assessment is an element of the conference review um but the rest of it then is policy reviews to ensure conformity with all your provincial policies and provincial plans so the intention is that the land supply and the land need evaluation is to continue um so that we can get to that urban growth boundary discussion and look for the the housing supply initiatives like the the things that it supports um but the other policy reviews that are related that are part of a comprehensive review would be what would be put on pause until the fall when a new scope of work is determined also yeah so lots more information to come to this committee uh in the future uh so thank you good luck with all the work that you’ve got ahead of you council ramen now i will uh go over to you thank you and through you can you hear me okay we can wonderful thank you first um thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak at this late hour and i must say this has been a marathon meeting and thanks for all of your hard work i’m planning tonight um yeah i wanted to speak to this item as it relates to the Hyde Park area and welcome the opportunity for further discussion at this topic i do know that this has been an area of interest um specifically looking at converting this area to residential um but more and extensive conversations need to happen with uh with residents and uh business owners in the area so i am very um supportive of the the next steps in the process and uh making sure that that’s it’s as extensive as possible um because there are from from the conversations i’ve been engaging in in the last few months there are many people interested in um looking at the potential of this area and not just for residential so i appreciate all the questions that have come from other councillors on the committee so far um around how that discussion is shaping out with the comprehensive zoning and the comprehensive review uh part of this discussion and how those kind of intertwine but are separate um i think is really important in this area um and i welcome the opportunity to have some of those conversations uh with our staff around some of the challenges that businesses in the area have faced because of this type of of zoning at this point um and the permitted use so based on what i’ve seen tonight uh thank you i want to say thank you again to mr. Fleming and to those that have submitted communication thus far um looking at this this area and the potential for residential i do see the value of residential in this area it is um as as others have stayed an excellent um opportunity to see development in this area which is as i can see and you can see from the letters that have been provided in this package um have not met the uh industrial needs of of the community what the business community or in the industrial community that’s looked at this property um that have looked at opportunities and and have not been able to um maximize that that potential in the area um this for those of you that haven’t had a chance to walk or or take a look at this um area you know as mentioned in the letter this is a beautiful piece of land it backs on to a stormwater management um facility or or i should say um it is later a stormwater management pond uh as well as a beautiful trail that’s being developed and continues to be worked on um and so i see the value of looking at this property differently um and i do think that it will be seen as an attractive place for the city to grow within our urban growth boundary so thank you thank you counselor any other comments the look for a motion to receive a counselor Hopkins seconded by acting Mayor Lewis i’ll call the vote closing to vote the motion carries five to zero thank you and uh thank you counselor Hopkins for recognizing uh mr. Fleming up there it’s uh not used to that angle uh we’ll forget that fellas here side um we’ll move on to deferred matters uh there’s an added 5.1 nay three port the community advisory on planning uh look for motion to receive counselor Hopkins seconded by acting Mayor Lewis and uh i’ll call the vote closing the vote the motion carries five to zero and folks i believe that’s it motion to adjourn acting Mayor Lewis seconded by counselor frank all in favor for adjourn thank you folks yeah i have only ever seen it with flasks i never seen it without but i can imagine it being very…