August 14, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Items 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   8th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-07-20 ECAC Report 8

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee:

a)    the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Working Group comments on the Environmental Impact Statement relating to the property located at 952 Southdale Road West E FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration; and,

b)    clauses .11, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.6, inclusive BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Designation Pursuant to Part IV, Ontario Heritage Act - 1350 Wharncliffe Road South

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (2.3) 1350 Wharncliffe Road South

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (2.3) 1350 Wharncliffe Road South - Appendix E

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (2.3) 1350 Wharncliffe Road South - Appendix F

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 designation of the property located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix C of this report; and,

b)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix C of the staff report dated August 14, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

it being noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being further noted that should an appeal to the passage of the by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and,

it being also noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated July 28, 2023, from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning / Design, with respect to this matter;

it being acknowledged 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

2.4   Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 134 Wortley Road, Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (2.4) 134 Wortley Road (HAP23-047-L) REDACTED

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42, Ontario Heritage Act, seeking to recognize the demolition of the former building and approval for a proposed new building on the heritage designated property located at 134 Wortley Road, within the Wortley Village Old South Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    prior to the submission of the Building Permit application, the following details be provided to the Heritage Planner for approval:

i)    storefront panelling details;

ii)    storefront windows, including transom with simulated divided lights; and,

iii)    upper windows, including simulated divided lights;

b)    the exterior of the building, including its detailing, have a painted finish;

c)    consideration be given to using permeable pavers for the parking areas;

d)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the Building Permit application to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit; and,

e)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being acknowledged 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

2.2   Heritage Alteration Permit Application - 520 Ontario Street - Old East Heritage Conservation District

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (2.2) 520 Ontario Street (HAP23-042-L)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act to erect a new house on the property located at 520 Ontario Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as proposed in the drawings appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix C, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    all elevations of the exterior of the house be clad in horizontal vinyl siding with the exception of shake-style fibre cement board cladding in the gables and around the front doorway;

b)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with the submitted design prior to issuance of the Building Permit;

c)    all exposed wood, including but not limited to the wood porch railing/guard, wood exterior stairs, and wood porch skirt, be painted;

d)    the property owner be encouraged to use colours from the Old East Heritage Conservation District palette (Appendix D);

e)    the property owner be encouraged to use landscaping at the front of the property to minimize the visibility of the height of the basement level; and,

f)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a verbal delegation from U. Hecht, with respect to this matter;

it being acknowledged 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

That the request for delegation status by U. Hecht relating to the property located at 520 Ontario Street BE GRANTED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Demolition Request for Heritage Property - 763-769 Dundas Street

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (3.1) - 763-769 Dundas Street REDACTED

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 demolition request for the building on the heritage listed property located at 763-769 Dundas Street:

a)    the Chief Building Official BE ADVISED that Municipal Council consents to the demolition of the building on the property;

b)    the property located at 763-769 Dundas Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources; and,

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to commemorate the history of the property in a future development;

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

  •    H. Garrett, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    Q. Lang, Vice Chair, Cross Cultural Learner Centre Board of Directors; and,

  •    V. Marochko, Executive Director, Cross Cultural Learner Centre;

it being acknowledged 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. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Demolition Request and Alteration Permit for Heritage Property - 320 King Street

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (3.2) 320 King Street (HAP23-040-L) - Full - REDACTED

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to demolish the existing parking garage and erect a new high-rise building on the subject property located at 320 King Street, within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District, BE PERMITTED as proposed and described herein and shown in drawings appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix D, subject to the following terms and conditions:

a)    Design Modifications be implemented if and as appropriate to accommodate any measures required to mitigate potential telecommunications signal interference;

b)    a vibration monitoring strategy be prepared and undertaken during demolition and construction activities to assess and mitigate potential vibration impacts on adjacent cultural heritage resources;

c)    the Heritage Planner be circulated on the applicant’s Building Permit application drawings to verify compliance with this Heritage Alteration Permit prior to issuance of the Building Permit; and,

d)    the Heritage Alteration Permit be displayed in a location visible from the street until the work is completed;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal 

presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    T. Whitney, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

it being acknowledged 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. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   Vacant Land Condominium - 1875 Dalmagarry Road (39CD-23503)

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (3.3) 1875 Dalmagarry Road (39CD-23503)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Hyde Park Ventures Inc., relating to the property located at 1875 Dalmagarry Road, the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issue was raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the vacant land condominium application:

a)  the provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

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

  •    A. Soufan, York Developments; and,

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

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

  •    the purpose and effect of the meeting is to report to the Approval Authority any issues or concerns raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium and application for Site Plan Approval;

  •    the subject development block is of a size and shape suitable to accommodate the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium; and,

  •    the proposed use, form, and intensity are considered appropriate and compatible with existing residential development in the surrounding neighbourhood;

it being acknowledged 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-D07)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   341 Southdale Road East (Z-9626)

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (3.4) 341 Southdale Road East (Z-9626) - REDACTED

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Sam Singh, relating to the property located at 341 Southdale Road East, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 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 (R3-3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-()*h-()*h-()h-18R5-6()) Zone;

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

  •    A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan;

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

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

 

it being acknowledged 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)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

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 (5 to 0)

3.5   2550 Sheffield Boulevard (Z-9420)

2023-08-14 - Staff Report - (3.5) 2550 Sheffield Blvd (Z-9420)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to a portion of the lands located at 2550 Sheffield Boulevard:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 29, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Holding Business District Commercial BDC2 Special Provision / Office OF5 / Residential R8 Special Provision (h-h-54-h-100-h-128-BDC2(5)/OF5/R8-4(17)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(  )) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review short-term public bicycle parking in the development;

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

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited; and,

  •    N. Davis;

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

  •    the recommended zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020);

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

  •    the recommended zoning will permit cluster townhouse dwellings as a permitted use which is appropriate and compatible with existing and future planned development in the area;

it being acknowledged 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)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Facilitation of London as a Bird Friendly City by Nature Canada - B. Samuels, Coordinator, Bird Friendly London

2023-08-14 Submission - London Designation as a Bird Friendly City by Nature Canada - B. Samuels

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Whereas bird populations in North America are declining at alarming rates due to human factors that require urgent corrective actions to address;

Whereas the City of London and its surrounding region are home to many species of birds that migrate through or occur here throughout the year;

Whereas the City of London, through its programs, policies and operations, aims to protect the Natural Heritage System and to conserve birds and biodiversity wherever possible;

Whereas Nature Canada has developed a certification standard to certify eligible municipalities as a “Bird Friendly City” that recognizes and celebrates their contributions to saving bird lives within their jurisdictions; and,

Whereas the City of London’s existing “High-level” Bird Friendly City certification reflects the ecological, economic and cultural significance of birds to Londoners;

Be it resolved that the City of London supports efforts by the London Bird Team to pursue London’s re-certification as a Bird Friendly City;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication from B. Samuels, Bird Friendly City London, ON, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-08-09 - CACP Report 9

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on August 9, 2023:

 

a)    the revised Working Group comments appended to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report, with respect to the property located at 50 King Street and 399 Ridout Street North, BE FORWARD to S. Wise, Senior Planner, for consideration to be included in the staff report going to the Planning and Environment Committee August 14, 2023; it being noted that Community Advisory Committee on Planning would encourage public access through the corridors connected between the proposed towers and jail and courthouse; and,

b) clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, 4.1, 5.1 to 5.6, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:07 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 17 minutes)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is just past four o’clock. I’ll call the 13th meeting of the planning environment committee to order. Please check the city website for additional and from meeting detail information.

Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Bodinoshi, Luna Peiwak, and Adirondron. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today.

As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEC@london.ca or 519-661-2480 at this point, I’ll ask for any disclosures of pecanary interest. Seeing none, I will move on to the consent items.

I will be pulling a 2.2, the Heritage Alteration Permit application for 520 Ontario Street. Are there any other consent items that many members would like to see involved? OK, seeing none, I’ll look for a motion. Bear with me, folks, clerks having some technical difficulties.

We are back up and running. We are on the consent items. I will look for a motion to move those items. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and I’ll open the floor now for discussion or comments.

OK, seeing none, we have a motion. Moved and seconded, and I’ll call the vote. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Having e-scribed problems, I will vote verbally, yes, and log back in.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. So 2.2, a consent item has been pulled, and that will, as is our practice, be moved down to after deferred matters at the end of our meeting. So now I’ll move on to scheduled items. 3.1, public participation meeting regarding a demolition request for Heritage property at 763, 769 Dundas Street.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hilliard, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0.

Thank you, and we’ve had a consultant’s report added. If there are any technical questions for staff, now will be the time. I’ll move on. If the applicant is here and would like to address the committee, now is your chance.

Please give us your name, and you have five minutes. Turn on your mic. Is it on? There you go.

We’re going to hear you. Thank you. My name is Heather Garrett. I’m with the link of preamble limited.

I’m here with myself and the property owner. And basically, I just want to give you a really quick summary of how we came to make our decision to apply for a demolition request. The property is— the structure is part of a larger development on the site. And we did our due diligence for the Heritage Report.

We also had at least three structural reports done. Unfortunately, the building is in very rough shape, starting with the foundation all the way up to the roof. So the cost to stabilize it is over 2.5 million. In addition, the building has been very altered.

So making it— reusing the building is just not in the cards for this property. So I do have with us the property owner who could speak to what it’s being replaced with. We also have done a rendering and everything to take into account the character of the existing structure, as well as the neighborhood, and come up with a nice replacement for the streetscape. And he will be seeing this again.

The next steps for this project is the rezoning application. And you will see all the renderings in that through that application process, as well. So I’m here for questions, but I’d like others to speak to this, as well. Thank you.

My name is Quinton Lang. I’m the vice chair of the CCLC’s board. And what we are looking to do in renovating the property is to create newcomer housing. The CCLC is the leading resettlement organization for refugees hearing government-sponsored refugees.

We have a board of about 20. And between us, we speak about 20 languages. And we are looking to continue to support the immigration of new government-sponsored refugees. This is a vital initiative for us, because it will provide a transition from temporary emergency-style housing into a more permanent housing as a first step into integration into the London market.

So I’ll just turn it over to our ED for a little more. Good evening. My name is Vallele Amorochkam, the executive director of the Cross-Culture London Center. We have been providing temporary housing since 1987 when we opened the Global House.

And at times, we have 150 refugees in temporary accommodation. We would like to build over 200 apartments on the property. We have confirmation from the architect and from our development consultant and the planner that it would be possible, provided that we go ahead and replace the existing building that is at the end of its life. We have been looking at preserving it, it’s very expensive, as Heather mentioned.

And we just want to be part of ensuring that the newcomers who come here would benefit from having 51% of the apartments built. Like we are talking about over 100 apartments. That would be affordable according to CMHC rules. And we are even talking about deeper affordability, although in the medium market rates in London is an affordable housing would be $800 for a two-bedroom apartment, which is comparable to market rates.

That could be $1,800 is a good level of affordability. And the remaining would be at market rates to support the affordable building. So we received funding from the CMHC funding. We received funding from the London Committee Foundation, like as a loan through the Social Impact program, that allowed us to acquire the property.

And we’re looking to move forward with this project as soon as we get the approval. So thank you. Thank you, sir. I’ll now look for any members of the public that would like to address the committee.

Clerk, if there’s anyone in the committee rooms are online. Through the chair, there’s no one online. Last call for folks to address the committee. Seeing none, I’ll go to the committee to get a motion to close the public participation meeting.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote. The motion carries 5 to 0.

Thank you all. I’ll open up the committee floor for discussion and motions. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Mr.

Chair, I’d be pleased to move the motion. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Frank, we have a motion moved and second. And now, conversation.

Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead. Yeah, I thought I could just speak to the motion. First of all, I want to thank the applicant for doing your due diligence as well. I know this is a request to demolish the property on Dundas Street.

But I think it’s important that we take a look at it. I know there is a suggestion even to do a commemoration or a plaque to celebrate the history. I really appreciate the work that Steph did on this as well. So thank you for that and happy to support the motion.

And good luck with your project. Thank you. There are comments, questions from committee members before I call the vote. Seeing none, then I’ll just allow me to just echo Councillor Hopkins’ remarks.

Yeah, terrific project. The need for that transition housing is evident, especially as Canada has opened its doors to those suffering from around the world and seeking refugee status, which London, for sure, does its part. So great to see this come before us today. Councillor Frank.

I also just want to say good job. Thank you. There’s no other questions or comments. I will call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. We will now move on to 3.2, public participation meeting regarding a heritage property definition request and alteration permit for a heritage property at 320 King Street. So I’ll look for motion to open that.

Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you.

Any technical questions for staff at this time before I go to the applicant? Seeing none, I’ll go to the applicant if they are here. I would like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Taylor Whitney. I’m a planner with the link of preamel limited here representing the landowners of 320 King Street.

First, I would just like to thank staff for their work on this project to date. We’ve been working diligently together with staff for the better part of a year on this file. And I’m excited to be back in front of this committee. We’ve had the opportunity to review the report prepared by staff and we appreciate their consideration and recommendation for approval.

And we are satisfied with the terms and conditions as recommended. So we’re here today hoping for a positive recommendation from this committee. And I’m here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Whitney. Call to the public now if there’s anyone in the gallery that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask to clerk if there’s anyone in these mini rooms or online.

Through the chair, there’s no one online. I don’t see anyone rushing to the mic. So I will look for a motion to close the PPM, Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. I’ll now put this on the floor for our committee members. Do for a motion discussion, Councillor Frank.

Thank you. I’ll move the staff’s recommendation. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Hopkins, we have a motion moved and seconded.

Any comments or questions, okay? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We are now on 3.3 regarding vacant land condominium at 1875 Delmagary Road. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Any questions of a technical nature for staff? Is seeing none, I’ll ask the applicant, they would like to address the committee.

How’s your time? It’s a clerk, I don’t see— Hi there. Mr. Sifan.

Thank you. You have five minutes, please go ahead. I’ll be quicker, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I was the only one available to make this meeting, but I think Scott Allen actually is online with our planning team, but we want to show our support for and appreciate all the efforts that staff have worked on diligently on this file. We got caught in a bit of a transition between different processes in regards to the vacant land process here, with some of the new legislation coming through, but nonetheless, we want to make sure we nod staff for their hard efforts and good works on this file. I’m here to answer any technical questions that may come up. Thank you.

Well within your five minutes. I’ll go to the public now and see if there is anyone that would like to address the committee. I’ll ask the clerk, is there anyone in the auxiliary rooms? Through the chair, there’s no one on Zoom.

Okay, last chance. Okay, seeing none, I’ll go to the committee for a motion to close. Oh, sorry, clerk has her. Scott, did you wish just, sorry.

Mr. Allen, did you wish to speak? Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr.

Chair. I was not intending to speak. Mr. Soothe, and I certainly laid out our position where supportive of the staff recommendations, so I certainly reflect that, but I’m available for any questions as well.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you. I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hill, you’re seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

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

Thank you, yes. I’d be happy to move the staff’s recommendation, but I was also hoping to add a teeny tiny amendment that I circulated beforehand regarding discussing bike parking. Okay, I understand the committee members would have had Councillor Frank’s amendment. Are you, you’re moving the motion with that, or you’re making motion, moving that with that amendments, that correct, Councillor.

Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’d be pleased to second it, but I would like to see if we can read it out for the public. Okay, I’ll ask the clerk to read that amendment. That on the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development, based on the application by Hyde Park Ventures, Inc.

relating to the property located at 1875 down McCarry Road, the approval of 30 be advised that the following issue was raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the vacant land condominium application, part I, short term bicycle parking. Thank you, is that the wording? Councillor Frank, just want to make sure we’re all good. Councillor Hopkins, are you okay to second that?

Okay, so I’ve got a motion moved and seconded any conversation? Seeing none, we’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Moving on to, I’m 3.4 public participation meeting regarding 341 Southdale Road East.

I’ll look for a mover to open that. PPM, Councillor Hillier, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call that vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Any technical questions for staff at this time? I’ll go to the applicants. The applicants here would like to address Mitty. Please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Alia Richards. I’m a planner with Selenka Priammo and we are here representing on behalf of Sam Singh, the applicant and owner of 341 Southdale.

I want to start by thanking staff for their continued work in processing this application. I’ve reviewed staff’s report and we are satisfied with their recommendations and their recommendation for approval. I’d like to encourage committee to endorse staff’s recommendation for approval. Thank you for your time and I’m happy to answer any questions from the council or from any member of the public.

Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for any members of the public that would like to speak to this application. Let’s clerk, if there’s anyone in the auxiliary rooms.

Through the chair, there’s no one on Zoom. Okay, last chance. Okay, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Oh, Mr.

Wallace, don’t confuse the chair. Easily confused (laughs) I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillier. I’ll call the vote.

Close in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’ll now put that item on the floor for committee members for motion. Councillor Hillier, are you moving it? Okay, I have a seconder.

Councillor Frank, now we got motion moved and seconded. Time for debate, questions. Councillor Hillier. Thank you.

Through the chair, actually more of a comment than a question. As you know, over the last 12, many may not know. Over the last two weeks in my ward, we’ve had two deaths at intersections related to neighborhoods that have corners that have not meant the safety counts, the traffic counts toward traffic installations. Now this one, right beside Sheffield, we lost a young man not in a week and a half ago.

And it could have been avoided. This is a corner that is in a dip and we have a high spot on the left and a high spot on the right. Anybody coming out of that neighborhood is risking their lives. Now this neighborhood was supposed to have a second entrance installed.

That has been put on hold indefinitely and I’m not sure when it will happen. I am putting forth a motion tomorrow, hopefully an emergent motion at Civic Works to possibly put in a temporary traffic light at this. Now I’m asking my colleagues to please look at these intersections and these neighborhoods that we’re building right now because we’re building faster than we’re providing safety for the residents. Last night we lost a gentleman at the corner of Dingman and Highbury.

This is another corner that has been studied and no, it doesn’t meet the warrants for a traffic light. Well, when does safety trump the warrants for traffic condition? We need a traffic light at this corner. We are talking with intensity in this neighborhood and this is just one word, I’m sorry.

I’m sorry. - Go ahead. Mr. Chair, I’m sorry, but I have to call a point of personal privilege on this.

The Ontario right roads guidelines dictate where traffic control measures are implemented. This is not a decision for our staff. We follow provincial policy on this just as we do with stop signs and other traffic control measures. It’s actually inappropriate for a counselor to impune the integrity of staff in suggesting that we are ignoring safety concerns when in fact we are following the provincial rules.

Councilor, I’m gonna have to agree with the deputy mayor on this. So I’ll give you an opportunity to kind of pull back on where you’re going. I’m very sorry. I did not mean to even imply that.

That was not implied at all. I actually may have been unintentionally implied. I just, I get frustrated on things like this and I’m very, very sorry about that. I’m trying to figure out a way for us to move forward.

Is there a way that council can override the warrants and allow for a traffic signal to be included at this location? I, in my opinion, I think, as you mentioned, you will be addressing civic works committee. I think that’s the committee for that to land on, quite frankly. And I’m gonna go to the clerk just a second.

Councillor, the clerk has brought to my attention which I should have noticed. You’re on the next item, Sheffield. We are on 3.4. So I’ll ask you to hold off on that.

And what I ask you to do, in the meantime, when we get to that item is to organize your thoughts into how or questions you might want to ask staff very specific to this one application regarding Sheffield in lieu of the comments made earlier. So I’ll look to committee members for discussion on 3.4. We’re currently at right now. We have a motion moved and seconded.

And if Councillor Hopkins. I’m sorry, are we moving the motion? I’m happy to move the motion. I thought we had.

Did we do that already? Sorry, in conclusion, we have moved and seconded. Yes, would you like to comment on it? Yeah, I’d like to make a few comments.

I’m pleased to support this. I’m glad that the holding provisions are being put on as well when it comes to noise. There’s a lot more work to be done. I’m getting confused here a little bit.

This is where the holding provisions are on Southdale. Yes, so happy to support the info project going forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, we have motion moved and seconded. I’ll put that vote on the floor. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, now we are on 3.4, which is PPM regarding 341 Southdale. I’m sorry, we are on 3.5, 3.5 regarding 2550 Sheffield Boulevard. I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Any technical questions for staff at this time?

I’ll go to the applicant. You have five minutes, please state your name. Thank you. Good afternoon.

My name is Alex Halston and I’m here with you on behalf of the applicant and the owner of the land sift and properties. We’ve reviewed staff’s report and are in favor of the recommendation to grant the rezoning of the lands as well as approval of the draft plan of vacant land condominium to support the proposed development. We would like to thank staff for the positive recommendation as well as members of committee for their time and consideration of the application this evening. Thank you and I’m available for any questions.

Thank you. Any members of the public that would like to address the committee, the last clerk or anyone in the auxiliary or online? Nancy Davis, please. Yes.

You have five minutes, please go ahead. Okay, 2550 Sheffield Boulevard is located in the subdivision where I live. I am supportive of this new housing, but only if parking issues are addressed. Victoria on the river is a subdivision designed, unfortunately, to be car reliant.

You cannot leave this area or the two subdivisions east of us safely by walking or biking. There are no sidewalks or trails on commissioners or Hamilton Road. There is no bus service on commissioners in our area. The bus service that was started on Hamilton Road runs between the Argyle Mall and the industrial area only on weekdays, welcomed, but not helpful if you want to go west or travel on weekends.

So almost every driveway here has two or more cars. To fit two cars in the driveway of the townhouses already on Sheffield, drivers use the Boulevard area, which is shorter than the required 18 feet. More cars are parked on the street. There is only one access to this subdivision.

Everyone entering or exiting the subdivision will drive by this proposed building. As you leave the traffic circle at Holbrook and proceed south on Sheffield, the road goes uphill and turns to the right. When cars are parked on the right, it is not always possible to see cars coming down that have just turned off of commissioners because the parked cars are blocking the view. Two weeks ago, I narrowly avoided a collision only by thankfully having a spot to quickly pull into between two parked cars on the right when a car coming off a 70 kilometer speed limit road was coming down the hill too quickly.

Except for the area at the south end of Sheffield where the boulevards on both sides have been narrowed to allow for off-street parking, it would be safer if no parking was allowed between Holbrook and commissioners. Parking and safety issues will only increase with the building of another block of townhouses and then the proposed apartment building across the street if planning does not include parking considerations. Having the builder include a parking lot with a minimum of 20 spaces or lengthening the driveway to allow two cars to park one behind the other without using the boulevard would be appropriate. In front of the proposed 2550 building, there is a boulevard that is 15 feet wide, not the required 18 feet for parking.

I hope that the planning department will seriously consider these parking and safety issues for the residents of Victoria on the river. Okay, thank you, any questions? Thanks, Ms. Davis.

I will, when we’re finished hearing from everyone, I will ask those questions of staff on your behalf. Okay, thank you. Thank you for keeping within your time limit and a very articulate and clear message to us. We appreciate that, thank you.

You’re welcome. Any other folks that would like to address the committee? We have none online or in the auxiliary room, so I will look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call.

Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thanks, I’m gonna go to staff on the question raised by of course, who addressed us and also I believe in communication we’ve received. Concerns regarding, I think two things. One is traffic with lack of transit or other ways of transportation and parking and potential blind spots that are currently exist and will that be exacerbated by this project?

And there was a request in there for consideration to be given for lengthening the drives on these properties. I’ll go to staff for their comments on those issues. Through the chair, thanks for the opportunity to comment. This phase of subdivision is currently in for a detailed design review, it’s known as phase six for Victoria and the River.

As part of that phase, Siften is looking to add pedestrian bridge, which will improve connectivity between this subdivision and subdivision to the east, as well through that design review, there’s an implementation of a second access between those two subdivisions, which is leading to a lot of these traffic concerns that have been raised by the public today. We do anticipate having an approval of this phase in the near term with Siften looking to construct this phase of their subdivision in spring 2024. And through that staff do believe that this will alleviate a lot of the congestion concerns from residents. The one concern regarding removing, parking on the street cautious with removing parking is because based on my experience, as well as staff’s experience in transportation and traffic calming on street cars often act as a way of making commuters feel more tight in the roadway leading to slower speeds.

So if you were to have no parking on both sides, it would more than likely create a, not a speedway through there, but you would see an increase in speeds and would have the inverse effect that the resident is requesting. Finally, we have engaged with LTC, just on a possible route extension. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get a firm response on the route extension, but we are engaging myself and Katie Burns on this issue just to see what we can do in terms of offering residents other mobility options. Thank you.

I just wanna cycle back to mention the second access point, which Council Hillier had brought up in his remarks, and so that my understanding from the Councilor’s remarks had been originally thought of and then kind of been put on the back burners, but now from my understanding is that you are looking, very seriously looking at getting that second access point up and running through the subdivision. Yeah, S and through the chair. Unfortunately, this was the last phase of the subdivision, but this access will be planned. It will connect both of those subdivisions, Sheffield and Constance to one another.

So this subdivision will have a second access. And as mentioned, we do anticipate spring 2024, I believe Siften’s already out there doing earth excavation work, getting ready for the next phase. Okay, thank you. Okay, I’ll open the floor now to committee members, Councilor Hopkins.

Yes, I have a couple of questions, public technical and nature, just following up on the residents comments or the public comments that we just heard. Sidewalks, are there sidewalks planned? I know in particular on Sheffield, but I do know sidewalks tend to be an added safety measure in developing neighborhoods so people can walk safely or the public mentioned commissioners road east, but curious to know if planned sidewalks on Sheffield. All good stuff.

Through you chair, there is proposed sidewalks, both on on both sides of Sheffield, coming from commissioners north, there will be on both sides, you’ll have development, excuse me, on the east side and the west side, and they’ll be incorporated within the boulevard of Sheffield. Councillor. As sorry, as well, there’s the Thames Hill Parkway that’s also incorporated on the west side of Sheffield that runs up to commissioners road and then in behind the residential properties on the west side of the development. Councillor.

But nothing planned for a commissioner’s boat east or what is there on commissioners boat east? On staff, through the chair, I was just reviewing the transportation’s new sidewalk program list and it looks like it is on the list, it’s currently rated a medium priority. Unfortunately, I’m not able to speak right now to timing of that project. I know they do have a specific budget and they allocate projects each year, but we can always touch base on exact timing for that as well, if you’d like.

That’s good to know through the chair the opportunities to make the neighborhood safer are available. There was a comment in the recommendation from the public about having a better understanding of the future plan of this phase. Is there a plan or is it going through a process? It was a question, I think it was a fair question for the public to understand about the plan for this area.

You got a staff through your chair that this is one of the final phases of the subdivision that is known as Victoria on the river. We do have potential applications coming in. The bulk of the remaining development will be through this phase, which will include a pedestrian bridge that goes from Holbrook over to Oreo. And then as my colleague mentioned, there’ll be the connection onto constants.

So you have Barn Swallow that’ll connect in there and that’ll be all part of the phase. Currently that is what’s been circulated. So on our website, we do have the application and it’ll show the draft plan of subdivision. Councilor.

  • Thank you. Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to follow up on that a little bit as well.

I’m curious if you have it pulled up. If staff feel a comment on any sidewalks on Hamilton Road that extends out to commissioners where it meets ‘cause it seems to be a bit of a pedestrian, I don’t know what the word is. There’s no sidewalks on Hamilton or commissioners. So I did walk around this area two years ago and I remember feeling very nervous ‘cause the cars are coming at 80 kilometers now or both on Hamilton and commissioners.

And you’re just on the side of the road. So I’m just wondering for Hamilton Road as well if that’s in the works. Can staff comment on Hamilton? Through the chair, unfortunately, trying to pull it up right now on our new sidewalk program or transportation’s new sidewalk program list and I don’t see it.

But if residents do have concern and would like more mobility options, they’re most definitely able to provide a request to the transportation department through that list and then they’ll add it and create a priority ranking. Councilor Frank. Thank you. And to follow up on that as well, I’m wondering, given we’re doing the master mobility plan, if there’s any plans for cycling along Hamilton or Commissioner of Roads East and having a complete street on either of those major arterial roads?

Staff, through the chair, thank you for the question. I’m just trying to pull up to see if commissioners is a cycling route. Let me get back to you on that question, if you don’t mind. Okay, we’ll give him some time to look into that Councilor.

Any other questions right now? I’ll go to Councilor Hillier and then my Deputy Mayor. Yes, well, thank you very much. First of all, I’ll let everyone know.

I’ve been dealing with some very emotional residents the last couple of days and it’s clearly affected me more than I thought it had. So I apologize for that. Good to hear that we have a second access coming in. Residents would like it sooner than later, obviously.

I’m hoping staff members will be, a few staff members will be attending with me. We’re having a neighborhood meeting in that area on September the 16th and I’m hoping staff will be there to explain some of this to them as well. And I appreciate that. I will be forward and will be having an emergent motion coming forward a future civic work community regarding this.

I’m hoping we have discussion then and I will reserve my comments for then. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

And I will leave it to our staff to continue to look up the cycling master plan because Councilor Hillier was briefer than I thought. So I had closed my search engine and start my own comments here. However, I would say and encourage colleagues, particularly on both of these issues, sidewalks and cycling to take the opportunity to reach out to staff and transportation and ask for those lists. Because I will tell you, you know, we have neighborhoods that are built out that have been waiting on the sidewalk or on list for a while.

Cumberland side road in my ward, for example. So when you start suggesting that we need to move it up to a priority list, you’re bumping someone else down. So just something to, you know, please keep in mind that there are folks waiting in budgets. There are budgets.

This is a neighborhood that is not even, this is a neighborhood that’s not even fully assumed yet by the city. It’s my understanding. So through you, I’d like to ask staff if we have in fact assumed the subdivision yet or if it is still under private control. Oh, go to staff for that question.

Through you, Chair, there’s portions that have been assumed the bulk of it hasn’t been assumed by the municipality yet. Deputy Mayor. So thank you. So when it comes to any of these things where it’s still under private control, we have to recognize that these things are not something that we would be putting into the city budget.

We don’t have control of the subdivision yet. The same would actually be true of things like traffic light warrants or stop signs or on any of those things. We, when a subdivision is being developed out, our responsibility takes over when we assume it. Until that time, the responsibility for that is still the developers and I will apologize.

I wasn’t sure what the question was, but I didn’t mean to imply that we were suggesting we were going to move sidewalks up, but there is a considerable list and it’s been prioritized based on needs. And so often what you’re going to get is there are higher priority needs because a community has been waiting longer to get them. I’m very familiar with this part of the city. Used to live on Trapper Street around East Park.

So this was a regular route for me. What I would say in terms of things like the sidewalks and the transit service, I recognize it’s not there yet. I recognize the desire to have it come out there. But at the moment, our nearest commercial designated area is essentially commissioners and highberry.

So the resident is quite right when she says this is a car dependent neighborhood because it has not been connected to the rest of the city yet. It’s quite a ways out from any sort of commercial or even institutional schools, for example, settings. So there hasn’t been an anticipated need for pedestrian access on commissioners road because there hasn’t been a residence there for very long. And as we heard, most of the subdivision isn’t assumed yet.

So similarly with the questions around cycling, we do have a cycling master plan. And my understanding without being commenting particular to any specific road designation is that ideally we are planning those for major collectors rather than arterial roads because it helps keep cyclists in a road where the speed limit is designated at a lower level than it would be on an arterial road. So again, good to hear that the neighborhood connections, things like a pedestrian bridge are being planned. I know a little bit further down from this site, you would find the Meadowlily Woods footbridge as well and access to the north side of the river that way.

No, it’s not connected along commissioners road, but there might be other opportunities to look for active transportation connections forward. But I would just say it’s very difficult to ask these questions one off on an application when we’ve got various lists of sidewalk warrants, of cycling master plan routes and those kinds of things. So I just wanted to recognize that these are important questions, but a lot of the times if you seek out the master lists from our transportation staff, you’ll have an idea going in as to where these are on the prioritization and warrant lists. So I just wanted to share that.

And I just wanted to express through you, Chair, to Councillor Hill here, I appreciate the difficulty when an emotional circumstance has arisen with constituents. I truly do. Unfortunately, we very much have to have warrants in place because we shouldn’t actually be making decisions on where things like traffic lights or stop signs go on political, but rather on proven road safety guidelines. And that’s why we need to always be careful about varying away from those and sticking to the data.

Certainly accident collisions and fatalities and all of those things are considered in the evaluation of a warrant along with volumes, turns versus straight through traffic, all of those things. So while I know it is difficult in the moment, it’s really important to look at how we assess those things overall. Because we and the public at large actually are the least qualified members to make those decisions. We need professional engineers who understand road and transportation flow to make those decisions.

Thank you. And just to follow up on that, Councillor Hill here, I think it’s wise to continue on with civic works ‘cause those are the folks that are the professionals that the Deputy Mayor referred to. And I just want to pass our sympathies on to those families of the fatalities in your ward, for sure. Councillor Hopkins.

There is a motion on the floor. I just would like to speak to it. Absolutely. Yes, thank you.

And I’ll be supporting the motion. I appreciate the Councillors’ concerns for safety and his ward. And I think each and every one of us has challenges of people speeding and accidents and like the Deputy Mayor said, there are provincial processes that keep us in check. And I understand his concern.

I think we’ve all been there. I am supportive of this. I’m pleased to see in the recommendation that London Transit will be providing bus routes in this area or in the near future as well as to innovation industrial park. I think we’ve heard over and over again, the need for better transit in this area.

It’s a good transition. It’s a little less intense than the original application, but it is going to be a very desirable area and how everything is connected to that town square. I can see it being a good development and supportive. Thank you.

And thank you, Councillor. We have not had a motion move made yet. Yep, so I apologize for that. And I know Councillor Frank has an amendment as well.

So I’ll look, let’s get an emotion on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, and can I look, I guess, seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. And I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’d like to add an amendment.

The same one is the one we had just previous that I made about having staff discuss one public bike parking opportunity with the applicant. And I sent the language around to committee and to the clerk beforehand. I just wanted to reiterate, I will be supporting this as I like in fill, but I think the discussion that we just had reminds me constantly of why low density in the middle of a farmer’s field is not a great situation to be approving because there are not existing services for people to walk to and use. There’s no commercial, there’s no schools, there’s no sidewalks on the UTO roads, there’s no bike lanes.

So just an opportunity for us to maybe remember why infill is great and sprawl is not great, but I’ll be supporting this ‘cause it’s infill within this existing subdivision. And I also would like to add that bike parking as well, please. Thank y’all, I’ll just have the clerk read out, be the amendment. The civic administration be directed to discuss short-term public bicycle parking.

Thank you, so we’ve got a motion moved and second with the amendment. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote? I’ll put staff like to address the committee. Through the chair, thank you.

Just wanted to respond to Councillor Frankner question regarding bike lanes on commissioners Hamilton and they are planned through the cycling master plan. Thank you. Thank you for following up on that. I appreciate that.

I see no other comments or questions. I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

That concludes the scheduled items. We will now move on to items for direction. We have one, which is the facilitation of London as a bird friendly city. And I will put that on the floor for discussion.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I’d like to speak in favor of us continuing to support London as a bird friendly city. I know the previous council passed certification for this application.

Essentially, it’s through nature Canada, which is a federal charity. And we have a local chapter here. So bird friendly London. They do lots of amazing events, policy work.

There is a huge orna theological conference downtown that recently just occurred and had 500 bird enthusiasts coming to London from across North America. And I know that I think they sold out of all the beer at London Brewing Co-op because they had a bird beer there. So all to say, I think that continuing to support London as a bird friendly city is really good for us for the environment, but also in a weird way economically. So I’d like to support this resolution so that we can continue being a bird friendly city.

Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Hopkins, any other discussion? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Councillor Frank, for those comments.

I was fortunate enough to bring city greetings at the ornithological conference that was held last week. And I think there was way over 500 people there. It was really quite exciting to be a part of bringing the greetings, but it was even more exciting to say that we are a bird friendly city and the work that we are doing here in our city. I was proud to talk to these experts in the field to say that we are working to incorporate bird friendly building design requirements, things like that.

And I was amazed at how they were so encouraged that we were doing that in our city. So very happy to support our second motion. Thank you, any other comments or a call to vote? Well, with the forest city, it falls naturally that we should be bird friendly.

And congratulations, Councillor Hopkins, for pronouncing that word, which I will not even attend. Seeing no other comments, I’ll put that motion on the floor for a vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we have one consent item that was pulled, and that is 2.2, which is the Heritage Alteration Permit Application 520 Ontario Street.

We do have a request for a delegation status by Mr. Hecht. So I will look to committee for a motion to approve that delegate. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Mr. Hecht, over to you, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Oui Hecht, and I’m here presenting the owner. In regard to the Heritage Application 520 Ontario Street, as you can see from a staff report, the house was demolished due to an accident, the tree fell on it. That was in June of 2022.

We are applying to build a new house on the lot in cooperation with the homeowner through the insurance money. Originally, we applied for the cladding on the house to be a fiber cement board or hardy siding. Through discussions with the insurance company, we realized that the insurance company will not be covering that cost as the original house at the vinyl siding. And they are willing only to cover what was existing prior to the accident.

We had to change that detail on the submission. It went to the advisory committee where it was approved with a minor change regarding the shakes on the front elevation. They recommended that the front elevation will include fiber cement shakes, but they proved it with the vinyl siding. Basically, we are asking the committee to approve the committee recommendation keeping the vinyl siding in order to prevent financial loss to the homeowners.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. I’ll look for a motion or okay. Before I go to committee members, I’m gonna look to staff to a brief verbal kind of update on where we’re here.

And I know staff has made some changes regarding the applicant and the CACP that can kind of bring the committee up to speed on. Please go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. The information you heard from the applicant this evening is accurate.

We do have currently this heritage alteration permit application for the new house at 520 Ontario Street in the oldies heritage conservation district. The application was submitted with fiber cement board specified as the exterior cladding material. And that’s the basis of the staff recommendation that’s before you tonight. We were advised by the applicant that there were some issues with the insurance, but were unable to provide a revised recommendation.

So it went forward to the community advisory committee on planning, whereas you heard there was a change to the staff recommendation to support the vinyl siding at the request of the applicant while retaining the fiber cement board shake style detailing in the two front gables and around the front door, as specified in the CACP recommendation, which you’ll find in their report on your added agenda. I understand that there’s been a revised recommendation provided to the committee clerk in your eScribe system. I’d be happy to answer any other questions you might have. Okay, thank you.

So I’ve got the new recommendation in front of me. I think I asked committee members if they have that wording. The clerk, can you put that up? So the clerk has put that up.

So if you refresh, you can see that. Essentially what it does is, echo what Mr. Ganyu has said regarding the vinyl siding. And that’s what we would be kind of looking at today.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’m happy to move that recommendation with the final siding. Can I get a seconder? Deputy Mayor Lewis and comments or questions regarding this before I call the vote.

I will say this, I want to thank staff for working with the applicant to achieving the spirit of heritage, with recognizing the realities of today’s cost. So thank you very good, and thank you to the applicant to work with our staff to find a way that kind of gets us to where we all want to get to a preserving heritage, but in a cost effective way that we can all afford and still provide housing. So thank you. So if there are no other comments or questions, then I will call the vote.

Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we have one more item on the deferred matters, additional business, 5.1 to 9th report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning. We’ll look for a motion on that. Councillor Frank.

Thanks, I’m happy to receive it. Thank you, I have a seconder, please. Councillor Hopkins, any discussion? I will call the vote.

Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Councillor Frank. Thanks, not that I want to delay this, ‘cause I think this is our shortest PEC meeting ever, but I’m wondering, do we get the monthly, like the additional business? You know, there was like a little chart, maybe a month or two ago, that had all the additional deferred matters.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I’m just wondering, do we get that as like standing added to gender items? I can see what’s sitting there in our deferred matters list. I’ll go to staff on that question regarding, it’s our clerk, Clerk Kanan, that’s it.

Through the chair to the Councillor, the next scheduled deferred matters list will be on the October agenda. Councillor Frank. Thank you, so is that quarterly then instead of monthly? I believe so.

So that concludes the business at hand. I’ll look for a motion to adjourned. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Show of hands.

Thank you. Motion. Committee is adjourned.