October 3, 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

2.1   Delegation of Authority - Part Lot Control

2023-10-03 - Staff Report - (2.1) Delegation of Authority - Part-Lot Control

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2023 to amend By-law CP-17 being “A by-law to delegate certain portions of Council’s assigned authority with respect to approvals for plans of subdivision and condominium pursuant to the Planning Act”  to delegate the authority to pass by-laws to exempt all, or parts of, registered plans of subdivision from part-lot control.  (2023-D25)

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   10th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

2023-09-21 ECAC Report

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 21, 2023:

a) the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Working Group comments on the Environmental Impact Statement relating to the property located at 2473 Oxford Street West BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration;

b) the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Working Group comments on the Environmental Impact Statement relating to the property located at 465 Sunningdale Road West BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration;

c) the appointment of S. Miklosi BE RESCINDED from the Ecological Community Advisory Committee due to lack of attendance; and,

d) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, inclusive, 5.1 to 5.3, inclusive, 5.5 and 5.6, 6.1 to 6.5, inclusive, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

3.2   3480 Morgan Avenue (OZ-9100 / 39T-22503)

2023-10-03 - Staff Report - (3.2) 3480 Morgan Avenue (39T-22503 OZ-9100)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 3480 Morgan Avenue:

a)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-63h-82h-95h-100h-105h-135(CSA5(3)) Zone and a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision Zone (hh-11h-63h-82h-95h-100h-105h-138(CSA5(3)) TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (hR9-4(_)) Zone; Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-54h198(R9-7(_)/CSA5(3)) Zone; Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh54h-198(R9-7()-CSA5(3)) Zone;  Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh54*h-198(R9-7()/CSA5(3)) Zone; and an Open Space (OS1) BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    a couple of additional holding provisions are considered necessary to address a range of planning and servicing issues associated with the proposed development.

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 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 Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-63h-82h-95h-100h-105h-135(CSA5(3)) Zone and a Holding Community Shopping Area Special Provision Zone (hh-11h-63h-82h-95h-100h-105h-138(CSA5(3)) TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (hh-11h-100h-105h-198(R9-4()) Zone; Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-54h-100h105h-198(R9-7()/CSA5(3)) Zone; Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-54h-100h-105h-198(R9-7(_)/CSA5(3)) Zone;  Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (hh-11h-54h-100h-105h-198(R9-7(_)/CSA5(3)) Zone; and an Open Space (OS1);

c) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to lands located at 3480 Morgan Avenue;

d)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process; and,

e)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited (File No. 39T-22503),  prepared by Archibald,  File No. 8-L-5709-A, March 17th 2022, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of one (1) Medium Density Residential Blocks, three (3) Mixed-Use Blocks and one (1) Park Block and two new streets (Street A and B) SUBJECT TO conditions;

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

-  L. Clark, Sifton Properties Limited;

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;

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

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

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-D09)

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

3.3   1236 Southdale Road East (Z-9634)

2023-10-03 - Staff Report - (3.3) 1236 Southdale Road East (Z-9634)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Aun Holdings Inc., relating to the property located at 1236 Southdale Road East: 

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 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 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-17*R5-7(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i)    design the side elevation of the corner units that are facing the driveway and the amenity space with enhanced detail, such as wrap-around porches and a similar number of windows as is found on the front elevation to offer reasonable level of passive surveillance throughout the site;

ii)    consider moving the garbage bins away from the view of the public street. If garbage bins cannot be moved to another location, provide all-season landscaping to screen the bins from the street and to provide a visual interest;

iii)    provide details for the patio wall/enclosure. Ensure the patio walls/enclosures are of minimum required heights and provide all-season landscape buffers with clear sight lines to delineate the public and private realm along the street frontages and around the internal parking area;

iv)    a 1.5 metre access aisle is required with the barrier-free parking stall in accordance with the Site Plan Control By-law; and,

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

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

  • M. Davis, 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;

  •    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-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.4   Amendment to Increase Additional Residential Unit Permissions (OZ-9651)

2023-10-03 - Staff Report - (3.4) - Additional Residential Units (OZ-9651)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2023 TO AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to change the maximum permitted Additional Residential Units within single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings or street townhouse dwellings FROM a maximum of two additional residential units permitted TO a maximum of three additional residential units permitted;

b)  the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2023 TO AMEND Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the City of London Official Plan, 2016, as amended in part a) above); and,

c)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the bedroom limit city-wide, except Near Campus Neighbourhoods, and report back on possible limits to Near Campus Neighbourhoods (NCN); it being noted that the Civic Administration has been directed to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

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

  • a communication dated September 6, 2023 from H. Schreff, London Hydro; and,

  • a communication dated September 15, 2023 from A. Laverty, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority;

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

-    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

-  J.M. Fleming, City Planning Solutions, on behalf of Copp Realty Corp.;

-  E. Poirier, University Students Council, Western University;

-  S. Levin; and,

-  J. Lepri

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 general intent of The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, Policy 942; and,

  •    the recommended amendment supports Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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 (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to direct staff to remove the bedroom limit city-wide, except Near Campus Neighbourhoods, and report back on possible limits to Near Campus Neighbourhoods (NCN); it being noted that the Civic Administration has been directed to undertake a review of the current five-bedroom limit and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.5   50 King Street and 399 Ridout Street (OZ-9622)

2023-10-03 - Staff Report - (3.5) 50 King Street (OZ-9622)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 50 King Street London Limited, relating to the property located at 50 King Street & 399 Ridout Street North:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to create a specific area policy in the Downtown Place Type at 50 King Street & 399 Ridout Street to permit increased height of fifty three (53) storeys and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 3, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 17, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Facility/Downtown Area (CF1/DA2D350H15) Zone; and a holding Downtown Area Bonus (h-3h-5h-18h-149h-207DA1D350H15B-36) Zone TO a holding Downtown Area Special Provision (h-5h-18h-103h-149h-207*h-()*DA2()D1250H186) Zone; an Open Space (OS4) Zone and an Open Space Special Provision (OS2(_)) Zone;

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

i)    provide a publicly-accessible, barrier-free path of travel from Ridout Street North to the Thames Valley Parkway and Ivey Park; 

ii)    provide building entrances from the residential lobbies to King Street;

iii)    provide a minimum transparent glazing on the ground floor of 25% on abutting King Street for Tower 2, a minimum of 40% abutting King Street for Tower 1, and a minimum of 60% abutting Ridout Street North for Tower 1;

iv)    utilize visual markers, etched or stained glass to provide bird-friendly glazing; 

v)    implement mitigation measures recommended from the wind study to minimize the impacts of wind on outdoor amenity areas and pedestrian areas; 

vi)    provide a minimum 1.0m stepback of the podium above the third floor for Tower 1: adjacent to the existing courthouse, along Ridout Street North, and along King Street;

vii)    provide a Building Condition Assessment and Strategic Conservation Plan;

viii)    implement construction monitoring for archaeological resources; 

ix)    provide and implement a Temporary Protection Plan prior to and during construction, to evaluate impacts on the existing heritage buildings; 

x)    provide a Commemoration Plan to recognize the historic significance of the site through cultural heritage interpretative signage, features, and other design elements.

xi)    provide parking underground and ensure there are no blank walls associated with the parking structure; and,

xii)    provide landscaped terracing towards and along Ivey Park that addresses the change in grade and provides for active uses; and,

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

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

  • a communication dated September 22, 2023, from J. Lownie;

  • a communication dated September 27, 2023, from J. Hall;

  • a communication dated September 28, 2023, from N. Knight;

  • a communication dated September 27, 2023, from J. Potter;

  • a communication dated September 26, 2023, from B. and J. Timney;

  • a communication from J. and B. Earley;

  • a communication dated September 28, 2023, from J. Donnelly; and,

  • a communication dated September 28, 2023, from D. Erskine;

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

-  S. Allen, MHBC PLanning;

-  C. Quintyn;

-  B. Earley;

-   S. Levin;

  • C. Spina;

-  J. Fontana;

-  A-M. Valastro;

  • J-M. Metrailler;

-  J. Easton;

-  J.M. Fleming;

  • D. Erskine;

-  J. Donnelly;

  • S. Britt;

-  S. Bentley;

  • Martin;

-  J. Jacobson;

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 Key Direction, Downtown Place Type and Criteria for Specific Policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a prominent site within the Downtown, Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit 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-D09)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Urban Design Peer Review Panel

2023-10-03 - Item for Direction - (4.1) Councillor Lewis - Urban Design Peer Review Panel

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the communication from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Lehman with respect to the Urban Design Peer Review Panel BE REFERRED to the October 17, 2023 Council meeting for a decision;

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

  • a communication dated September 28, 2023 from C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings Inc.; and,

  • a request for delegation status and a communication dated September 28, 2023 from M. Wallace, London Development Institute.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the communication related to the Urban Design Peer Review Panel (4.1) and the Deferred Matters List dated September 28, 2023 (5.1) BE REFERRED to the October 23, 2023 Planning and Environment Committee meeting for a decision.

Motion Failed (2 to 2)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

2023-10-03 PEC DEFERRED LIST

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the Deferred Matters List dated September 26, 2023 BE REFERRED to the October 17, 2023 Council meeting for a decision.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the communication related to the Urban Design Peer Review Panel (4.1) and the Deferred Matters List dated September 28, 2023 (5.1) BE REFERRED to the October 23, 2023 Planning and Environment Committee meeting for a decision.

Motion Failed (2 to 2)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members Only)

6.1   689 Oxford Street West - OLT Appeal and Instructions

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the item relating to 689 Oxford Street West BE REFERRED to the October 17, 2023 Council meeting for a decision.

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 689 Oxford Street West at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

(3 to 1)

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:46 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 58 minutes)

Okay, it’s 401, I’ll call the 16th meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. For council chambers, please check the city website for additional meeting, detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of Anishinaabak, Hadno-Shane, Leno-Paywalk, and Adawanwan.

We honor and respect the history and languages and culture of the diverse, indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for readings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PACPEC at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. At this time, I will call for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll move on to consent items. We only have one, so I will look to committee members for motion or comments.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, through you. I will move the staff recommendation. I have a seconder.

Councillor Frank, so it’s been moved and seconded any discussion, questions, call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you, we will move on to scheduled items. First, one, 3.1, it’s the 10th report of the ecological community advisory committee and San 11.

I would like to delegation status. Mr. 11, you have five minutes, please go ahead. Mr.

Chair, I put the report before you and I’d like to have a couple of questions addressed. One is at ECAC staff explained that because of bill 109, city ecologists only have two weeks to review an environmental impact study, that’s part of a complete application. This would also apply to HADER-G reports to slope stability and geotech. At times, what happens with EIS is that we review, they’re not always well done and more work is needed, but only two weeks are available for review.

I would appreciate if a PEC member would ask staff, what if any steps can be taken by council to ensure a review is given, a proper review, so that our natural heritage system will be protected as the city builds out. The second is the term of all your advisory committees, including ECAC ends the end of February, and the term’s been very different because of COVID. Committee was formed around that time, didn’t meet for about a year and shifted to hybrid in June. I’d say that’s been a barrier to group cohesion.

And at our last meeting, members asked what council has planned for advisory committees in general. Any CAC specifically, if you were to ask me, I would hope the chairs of the relevant standing committees would meet with the chairs. Are the advisory committees to discuss whether to extend our terms or advertise and start a fresh so that a recommendation could be prepared for council to consider? Sir, anything you can tell me that I can share with my committee when we meet this one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m available for questions. Okay, thank you, Mr.

London. I was going to go to staff on the first concern regarding a limited time to review the studies that come to advisory committee, early it’s two weeks. So what steps can be taken to address those concerns? Through the chairs, so through all the legislative changes, two things have, in terms of natural heritage, it has remained relatively unchanged.

So you still need to protect natural features for the long term and you still need to demonstrate the development will have no negative impact on the features or the functions. So what it means from a processing perspective is those questions still need to be answered. So it really underscores the importance of the pre-application process. So identifying the terms of reference up early, the scoping, clarity, all of those pieces so that the proper studies can be done in a timely fashion.

So and the other piece too is we’ll be delineating and identifying the significance of the features up front so that we know what we’re dealing with. And then the application process really deals with the mitigate, how do you mitigate those things and how you respond and those kind of things. So really what’s happened is a lot of the processes have to have to move earlier so that we have the information. So that when the application does come in through our 14 day review period, we can answer yes or no, where there isn’t any outstanding information requirements.

Okay, thank you. We’ve heard concerns before from staff regarding applications coming in not complete, et cetera, that delay the process. Would you feel it’s necessary to meet with Mr. 11 to maybe fair a ways that we can screen applications before they get to the advisory committee to maybe present that committee with something that they can deal with as opposed to wasting time and setting it back.

I’ll just throw that as a suggestion. Maybe you can contact Mr. 11. That’s just my comments from the Chair Committee members might have other opinions on that.

Regarding standing committees and advisory committees, the interaction, I can only speak for the planning committee and I would be happy to meet with you if you’d like for sure. So let’s do that, let’s figure out a way to connect and keep on the same page. Excellent, thank you. Okay, any other Councilor Frank?

Thank you, yes, I just want to say thanks for attending. It’s always nice to see chairs of advisory committees here. And I’m just wondering if I could ask the Chair to perhaps extend the invitation to, I think it’s the planning committee that also, the advisory committee, that means with us as well, to have the same conversation with that Chair regarding advisory committee appointments. I’m just wondering, I think those are the two that will respond to us.

Again, from the Chair, I don’t feel it’s my position to speak for other chairs of other standing committees. I’ll definitely have a conversation with those chairs and express what we heard today. But I’m hesitant, if you want to bring that up at SPPC, it might be a place too, but I’ll just couch that my intentions from here, please go ahead, Councilor. Sorry, I wasn’t clear.

No, I just meant you and just the two that we have at PEC. So that sounds great. It sounds like you’re gonna do that. Awesome, thanks.

Okay, great. Any other comments or questions? I’ll look for a motion to receive the report. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Yeah, moving on to 3.2. This is regarding 3480 Morgan Ave.

Look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Thank you.

If there are any technical questions for regarding the staff report for committee now is the time. Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant. Please give us your name and do you have five minutes? Good afternoon committee chair, members and staff.

I am Lindsay Clark with Tifton Properties Limited. I’d like to thank staff for bringing the report forward and agree with the recommendation to include holding provisions as a requirement of approval. And I’m available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. I’ll go to the public now for any persons that would like to address the committee on this item. Seeing none, the gallery, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Through the chair, there’s no one online.

Thank you. Seeing no one that would like to address us, I’ll look for motion to close public participation meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, so I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero.

So I’ll put the item on the floor now for her committee. Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’d like to move the staff recommended motion and I have a couple of questions after that.

Okay, I think it was second by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Please go ahead, Councillor. Thank you and through the chair to staff. So when I was reading this application, I had a couple of questions about park land.

I was getting a little bit confused, ‘cause there are a couple of comments on a couple of different pages. But I’m just wanting to confirm that there will be sufficient park space in this area. It looked like a, I don’t wanna say a lot, but it looked like there was gonna be some that was gonna just be cash in lieu. And given that this is a new subdivision, we have an opportunity to make sure that there’s adequate park space for all of the residents.

I just wanted to go through the chair to staff to make sure the community will have access to green space. I’ll go to staff through your chair, Bruce Page. The original plan of subdivision provided, or there was cash in lieu provided for the original subdivision. And then once this application was made, additional park land was required for the intensification.

There is no cash in lieu for this. The park land that was acquired was the required amount for dedication. So we won’t be taking any cash in lieu, Councillor. Thank you, wonderful, that sounds good.

And then the other question I had was, again, recognizing there was a comment about school capacity in the area. I noticed it was circulated to the school board, but there was no comment. I just wanted to follow up and I feel like Councillor Robin, if she was here, would want me to ask just to triple check given our overflow issues and new neighborhoods. Is there any worries about school capacity in that area?

Knowing that this is a school board matter, however, I will go to staff for your comments. Through the chair, this is Alison Curtis on behalf of planning and development. So as noted in the report, there are school blocks that have been incorporated and are appropriately zoned in parts of plans of subdivisions west of Boswick Road to accommodate new schools in southwest London. As noted again, development applications and pre-application consultations are circulated to the school boards and we receive no comments in terms of concerns.

Councillor. Thank you, okay, good to know. It’s good to have that on record in case something comes back in 10 years and people are upset that they didn’t have the opportunity to share. Another question regarding ecology, there again were a lot of comments about the draft environmental impact study and I just wanted to check with staff that are the ecological concerns going to be properly addressed or have they been through this process and have they been rectified or if they haven’t, how will they be addressed throughout this process?

Again, I’ll go to staff on the ecological questions from the council through you chair. The conditions or the recommendations that came from the IS, they’ll be addressed in the conditions of draft approval. So in terms of monitoring and aspects like that, they will be included and are included within our current draft. So that’s where we reflect those.

In terms of the implementation, part of the subdivision process, there’s a portion called focus design studies which will look at a higher level of engineering review and then the recommendations from that process will be implemented in the engineering drawings and that’s where the bulk of the recommendations for the EIS will be incorporated, I’m sorry. Thank you, only a couple more I think. But that was a good answer. I just wanna make sure that we weren’t missing those ‘cause they seem like quite a few somewhat serious, in my opinion, concerns.

The next one I was wondering was regarding tree preservation and I noticed there are two different numbers and I forgot which page that I pulled from but it first looked like 11 distinctive trees but then another page are at 33 distinctive trees. So I just was wondering, I mean, there are two different blocks, that’s why there’s two different numbers ‘cause I know there’s multiple blocks in this area. But I am wondering, given that they’re distinctive trees and they’re protected by tree protection by law, if you could just walk me through what the process is, is that do they pay us anything? Do they have to replant a certain ratio?

I was just hoping to get some information about, given that they are distinctive trees, what our plan is moving forward to address that through the chair. I’ll go to staff through you chair. That’s a good question. The, what’ll happen is, again, part of the focus design studies, we’ll be looking at the removal of any trees.

The tree by-law doesn’t come into effect after draft approval. So once it’s draft approval, the site alteration by-law will take effect and we’ll be looking and implementing it through the site alteration by-law. In terms of the ratios, we will have a condition within the draft plan that’ll talk about the ratios. The actual number of trees will be calculated through the focus design study and then through the landscaping plan that’ll be submitted as part of the engineering review, they will indicate where those trees will be planted.

Councilor. Thank you. And through the chair, just to follow up on that. So then, let’s, if there are certain number of trees that are being removed, then there would be adequate compensation, whether on those lands or on a different property.

I just wanted to get clarity ‘cause I, sorry, I was a little confused if they, if you do have to remove trees for this property, is a compensation for trees on that property or it could be another property that is recommended. I’ll go to staff. Through you chair, we’ve had conversations with Siften and we will try to compensate on site, but there may not be enough sufficient room on site to compensate for all the trees. And we would look to a separate location to provide for additional trees.

Councilor. Thank you. Those are all my questions. I appreciate all the good answers.

Thank you. Thank you, good questions. Any other comments or questions from committee members? We have a motion.

We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Okay, moving on to 3.3.

This is regarding 1236 Southdale Road East. I’ll look for a motion to open the PPM. Councilor Frank seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries three to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time based on the report? Seeing none, then I’ll go to the applicant. If the applicant is here, please give us your name and you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, members of committee. It’s Mike Davis here with civic planning and design. Here today representing our client on holdings who are the owner and developer of this project at 1236 Southdale Road East. First, I wanna just say that we’re fully in agreement with the staff recommendation on this file.

Appreciate the work of planning staff in terms of navigating this project through the approvals process. I will just point out that we did invest in the significant neighborhood communications and consultation strategy at the outset of this project. We had 50 unique page views on our project website. So that tells us that out of the 75 kind of homes and businesses in our circulation radius that we actually had the visuals in front of a hyper portion of them.

In terms of the development concept itself, we’ve worked closely with our client following the directions of the London plan to develop a concept that we think fits well for the site in the area and also implements a new form of housing in the neighborhood. I will point out that the property abuts the Westminster Ponds environmentally significant area. One of the things that we did early on just to help define what is developable on this site as we retained an ecologist who worked very closely with the city’s ecologist to come up with the concept you see today. So there’s a significant buffer at the rear of the property that will be naturalized right now.

There is actually existing structures in there. So that condition will be much improved. The concept itself, it’s for a 3.5 story stack townhouse building and keeping with the policies of the London plan. The other thing I think I’ll point out from a site design and fit perspective, we have strategically positioned the driveway on the east side of the property where this property abuts an existing home and so the goal there was to kind of maximize separation between the existing dwellings and this new project.

We’ve also oriented the driveway on a specific angle which will help us to retain as many trees as possible in the post-development scenario. So that’s just a snapshot of what we’re up to. Appreciate the time and here to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms.

Davis. I’ll look now to the gallery for anyone from the public that would like to address the committee on this issue. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. These are chair, there’s no one online.

Okay, seeing no one there on chambers would like to address us and I’ll look for a motion to close PPM, Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, I’ll put it on the floor now for our committee members. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I will move the staff recommendation.

Thank you, and I see a seconder from Councillor Frank and the motion moved in seconds. I’ll open for questions or comments, Councillor Frank. Thank you, I just wanna say I really like this one. I like how much consideration has been given to the ecology on the site, as well as the fence with no gates, which is very exciting to protect the existing ESA.

So I just wanna say thanks to staff and the applicant for this. Other comments or questions? Just a quick comment from the chair, it’s a great development. It’s an excellent example of infill, vacant lot right now, so thank you for contributing to housing in London.

Any other comments or questions from visiting Councillors? We have a motion moved in, seconded, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.4, and this is amendment to increase additional residential units, unit permissions.

I’m just gonna go to staff here for a quick, just a quick kind of overview of why we’re here on this. Thank you and through the chair, Brandon Koveny with Long Range Planning. The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment before us today are a result of council direction. They would serve to build on a previous amendment concerning additional residential units referred to as ARUs.

For reference, the most recent amendment related to ARUs was approved by council in June of this year, and those changes are currently reflected in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. So the most recent, or rather the motion that brings us here today is in August 29th, 2023, council resolution containing the following direction. That civic administration be directed to prepare a zoning by-law amendment that would permit as of rate building permits for up to four residential units, wherever as own permits, singles, sammies, or street townhouse dwellings for consideration by council, as soon as permitted by statutory requirements of the Planning Act. So giving the urgency of this motion, city staff have prepared recommendations that are quite narrow in scope to ensure timely fulfillment of this council resolution.

The recommended amendments would result in an increase from two additional residential units to three additional residential units to sort of effectively fulfill the motion, and at this time, we’re happy to answer any questions regarding the amendment before you today. Thank you, I just wanted to set the context for this before opening the PPM. So I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. So I’ll look to the gallery right now and see if there’s anyone from the public that would like to speak to this matter. Mr. Wallace, please go ahead.

You have five minutes, sir. Good, thank you. T does it down here, not me. It’s Mike Wallace from LDI.

I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to you. First of all, we want to be here in support of the changes that are being recommended in terms of the ability to have an additional unit on a lot, and I don’t want to throw a wrench into anything here tonight, but going forward, I would like Committee and Council to think about right now the way the by-law will work. There’ll be three, you could have up to three units in the main building, main building, and then one additional unit in the back with the lots in this city going from around between seven to 10,000 a foot, a frontage, that means a lot, 50 foot lots, half a million dollars to start with before you even dig a hole. There might be some opportunities, including our work that we’re involved with at the Affordable Housing Peace Reference Group, talking about the opportunity for different kinds of housing forms and types that may be able to be accommodated on a lot, whether they’re tiny homes, modular homes, or other options.

There may be a need for Council to consider that three in one building and one additional building might not work, but there could be maybe additional buildings on the one lot, so there might be more than two buildings on a lot. Take a tiny home, for example, 50 foot lot, 110, you might be able to fit three on there, that’s more not there yet, but I just wanted to give Council, a committee and Council heads up on what kind of things we’re talking about and what to make things truly affordable, truly affordable for people to be able to either purchase or rent, we’re gonna have to look at all options. And this move forward to having four units per lot is an excellent move forward. It may, in the future, need some discussion on what format that could take to have four units on a lot in terms of what, two semis, that’s, you know, that kind of thing.

So, but going forward, we are very appreciative of the concept that is being proposed here through this plan amendment and these amendments, and we congratulate the city and particularly the Council on the foresight on to making this happen and helping us get the $74 million to help on the affordable housing issue. Thank you. Thank you. There anyone else that would like to address?

Mr. Fleming, welcome to the chambers. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you have five minutes. Thank you, it’s nice to see everyone again. I gotta say, I am way out of practice, so here we go, we’ll see how it works out.

My name is John Fleming and I’m the principal of city planning solutions. Today, I am representing COPS Realty Core, and I think you’ll be happy to hear that they’re embarking on an aggressive program to promote and build backyard homes in London. And so, I’m always of the belief that municipalities, government can only do so much, and you need the private sector to actually promote and construct housing, and I think that’s exactly what could happen here, but COPS needs your help. Now, we call them backyard homes.

It’s a better marketing term than additional residential units within an accessory building, as you can imagine. But what we’re talking about is additional residential units within an accessory building outside of the primary structure. We recently had a really good meeting with the senior staff in building, planning, development, and housing, and really do appreciate the spirit of collaboration, the way that staff were working with us to solve problems. We were understanding their concerns, they were understanding ours, and I think it was a very productive conversation.

So, I’m here to say that we agree with the proposal that’s in front of you today, or the recommendation that’s in front of you, but like Mr. Wallace, I will say that we’re hoping that there are additional changes that could be made, and we think those changes should relate to changes to the zoning by-law, official plan, but also to processes, and I’ll explain that very briefly. First off, in terms of zoning changes, we think that the current allowances for three additional residential units should not be limited to just single, detached, semi-detached, and townhouse units. We’re missing duplexes, and we’re missing triplexes.

So, we think that that should be added. We think that there’s a tool that could be used to address the total number of units on the lot, and simply including in the zoning by-law that a maximum of four units would be allowed on each lot. We think that the five-bedroom maximum that currently applies would kill a lot of opportunities for additional residential units, and there needs to be a look at that. One way that could be addressed is allowing for two additional bedrooms for every backyard home, or an additional residential unit within an accessory structure.

So, as I said, I’d like to wrap up here, but we’ve been talking with staff about streamlining processes as well. Our folks in building, in planning and development, and in housing have been working with us on two pieces to that. One is to streamline the process to make it as simple as possible, but also to minimize the submission requirements. And when you look at a backyard home, in order to encourage a homeowner to actually go forward with constructing one, it really is something that’s sensitive to costs.

And when you start to instigate, or bring to the four additional processes, like minor variances, the requirement for things like a survey by a Ontario land surveyor, it really gets to be expensive, and you can really kill the opportunity for a backyard home quickly. So, we’d like to, in summary, continue our conversations with staff. As I said, we really appreciate the opportunity to work with them through this. We think this is urgent in order for COP Realty Corporation to move forward with these backyard units, promote them, have them make a difference in terms of housing supply, and an affordable form of housing in London.

We need to move these things forward. We understand that staff is targeting January of 2024 for this next round of amendments, and we look forward to contributing to that. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? Please go ahead, give us your name, and you have five minutes. Hi, everyone, good afternoon. My name is Emily Poirier, and I am the Vice President of External Affairs at the University Students Council at Western.

I’d like to thank all of you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. The University Students Council represents the 35,000 undergraduate students at Western by advocating on issues important to and that affect our student body. Housing is one of these issues that has quickly become one of the biggest concerns for our students. With that in mind, I would like to speak in favor of the proposed changes discussed today.

For post increase in additional units allowed as a right will increase densification across the city, including in near campus neighborhoods and other areas with large student populations. As the student population continues to grow alongside the greater London population, densification in near campus neighborhoods will allow for more students to continue living closer to campus and to walk or bike more easily to where they need to go. This will also reduce congestion on both public transportation and traffic from reduced commuting times and lines on cars. Also, the additional units allowed by this proposal will give students access to housing that is more appropriate to their needs as opposed to being forced to share single family residences among three, four or five other students.

By appropriately meeting students’ needs, these additional units will help alleviate the pressure on supply and allow for more affordable accommodation for both students and the community at large. The USC is happy to see the city take this direction and we hope to continue to see more action taken to address the housing crisis in London. We also look forward to collaborating with the city and Western to ensure that students’ basic needs are met and to prioritize all Londoners’ access to affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I see another person would like to address us. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, members of PEC.

My name is John Mark Metraier. I have, unlike some of the others here, no specific industry experience with these, but I’ve been involved with the policies as they’ve moved from one to two to three to four through the advisory committees and as this has moved forward and have a few comments. So as most Londoners, I’m concerned about housing affordability and I do broadly support the increase from three to four. But I’ll note the kind of echoing comments from Mr.

Wallace and Mr. Fleming that despite the permission on paper increasing from three to four from one and two, we still have pretty, at least from what I can see anecdotally, tap an uptake of even doing one, let alone four. And so I wanted to start, I know we’re just here to change three to four and do more later, but as with Mr. Wallace and Mr.

Fleming, I wanted to draw your attention to a few things that I think we should be thinking about going forward. One comment that was brought up at the Community Advisory Committee on Planning related to the definition of height in the current zoning by-law for accessory buildings. And so as I understand it, the definition of height now for accessory buildings is the tallest point on the building itself, regardless of whether it’s a gable roof, a hip roof, or a flat roof, and that’s actually different from, at least from what I can tell the definition for other buildings, like houses. And so a house, if you’ve got a gable roof, as I understand, you get some credit for the average between the top and the eaves.

But for garden suites, it’s different garden suites, backyard houses, whatever you wanna call them, it’s different and it’s measured to the top point, whether it’s a flat roof or a gable roof. And at least by my estimation, and from what I’ve seen in other places that are a little further along, is this really tends to encourage boxy looking carriage houses, garden suites, the hyper-modern squares. If you go to the GTA, all the laneway houses, all the garden suites seem to have that same shape. And so I’d encourage you moving forward to think about that definition of height, think about the architectural styles you’re encouraging or not.

At the advisory committee, we were particularly interested on how that change interacted with heritage. And so you may have a heritage policy that encourages a gable roof to match the surrounding character of the neighborhood. But then you’ve got a zoning bylaw that basically encourages you to do a flat roof. So those policies could be at odds.

The second thing I wanted to bring up and to start thinking about was how this interacts with condominium policies. And so at least how I read it as a layperson, I don’t think there’s anything stopping someone from taking say a four unit ADU, splitting it up into a condo and actually selling each unit as a condo. That obviously has some challenges and some benefits, benefits being financial viability of these projects. If you can do it as a condo instead of a rental, maybe it pencils where it wouldn’t as a rental.

I know in other jurisdictions, particularly in the States and Oregon and California, that you see a lot of ADU condos and they’re for the most part quite affordable. And so if the goal is to have more, not only affordable rental options, but also affordable purchaser options, that might be something to think about. I know the current condo policies in London are, again, from a layman point of view, seem to be pretty geared towards large projects. But if there’s a particular specific process, you can— - 30 seconds.

That might be something to think about. And the last point concerns near campus neighborhoods. I was happy to hear the comments from Western. Mr.

Levin is here as the president of a near campus neighborhood association. And I would encourage staff and council to engage with near campus neighborhoods who have some, I think, specific concerns that might not apply across the city. Those are my thoughts, thank you. Thank you very much.

If anyone else would like to address the committee on this issue, Mr. Levin, you have five minutes, please go ahead. - Yeah. Since Mr.

Metray mentioned it, I had already connected with Mr. Adema at last week’s rethink project and he’s already made the commitment to meet with representatives from the near campus neighborhoods to talk about the next phase of this policy. So that’s very much appreciated. I just wanted to update the committee and the councilors here about that.

Thank you. If anyone else would like to address the committee on this item, I’ll ask Clerk if there’s anyone online. John Lupry. Yes, I thank you for allowing me to speak, council members.

Just interrupt, I’ll just remind you that you have five minutes, please go ahead. Yes, thank you. So I’m in support of the additional residential units and I have a comment as well as questions in regards to that. In regards to both 23, if it’s been passed and allowed to build a third unit in the basement of a property, so my question is, or comment is, as Mr.

Wallace had mentioned on, is that is it possible at this moment to go through the process to apply to have a third unit built in a basement? So I’m not sure who could answer that and if this is the right place to have this discussion, but that is one of the questions in regards to that. And also that, again, duplexes, existing properties consisting of duplexes and/or triplexes if they have been presently looked at as well. I’m not sure if this whole policy and amendment to the zoning bylaws and to the amendment of additional residential units, if it all applies to new construction or is it applying to present residential buildings such as duplexes and triplexes as well as single homes to go through the process, to apply to have these units built internally within them.

So that is my comment and my questions in regards to PEC or to the council members. If anyone could answer them, that would be great. Because again, as I mentioned, affordable housing is required, it is needed in London and some people do have the accommodations and space to immediately build in addition to their properties, to accommodate Bill 23 as well as the housing crisis that London is faced with. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else online, Kirk? To the chair, no. Thank you, anyone in the gallery would like to address the committee on this item?

Seeing none, I’ll look for committee members of a motion to close the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by council. Those in the vote, the motion carries for the chair. It’s quite a staff on a couple of items that were raised in the comments.

Just regarding a third unit built in the basement, duplexes and sideplexes. Cost of people trying to get this going ‘cause it’s usually not gonna be big time builders or be individual people. Height considerations for aesthetics and how it fits in the neighborhood. So I know staff who are looking at other possibilities where those things be considered when you bring that report back to us.

Through the chair, just a very high level. I just wanted to let the committee know and the community know that we are working very diligently at looking at ways to be able to accommodate new forms of development, including additional reasonable units or back-air homes. And that’s actually one of the initiatives that we have as part of housing accelerator is to be able to look at different ways to do that and be able to make it a simple and smooth way for housing, for that housing to occur. So that is something that you’re gonna be seeing coming forward with us over the next series of months, but just wanted to raise that as a point.

And then for the other questions, we’ll throw it back off to some of the other staff members here. Okay, we have a staff recommendation. I’ll put that on the floor. Sorry with someone else would stop wanting to address.

Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, thank you through the chair. Just to respond to a couple of the questions. So the first specific one about three units being permitted, yes, or a third unit in a basement.

Yes, that would be permitted under the current regulations and actually even a fourth would be permitted after this amendment should it be approved. Also some of the other comments that we’ve heard, I mean, and as you can hear, we’ve already started having questions and discussions about next steps. So that is very much in the works already at this point. And we are working towards a January report back to this committee with further updates that go beyond the scope of the legislation and consider other changes that could facilitate and promote the development of additional residential units.

Some of the items that we’ve heard about today, no additional units in association with duplexes and triplexes is gonna be part of that review. Reviewing the bedroom limit, which is five bedrooms generally and three bedrooms on certain unit types within your campus neighborhoods, that’s going to be part of this review. Changes to the converted dwelling regulations, which in many zones is limited to two units, will be reviewed and likely increased to at least permit four. And then finally in regard to accessory buildings, we are looking at a number of changes in the zoning by-law related to that, including the number of additional units permitted in accessory buildings, the maximum lot coverage and the maximum building height, and even how that’s measured, whether it should be just to the top or to a midpoint on a slope roof.

Those are all part of this upcoming review and we’re targeting a report back to this committee in January. Thank you very much for the fulsome answer. Our committee goes directly to the concerns that we heard. So I will put this on the floor now for committee.

Councilor Fray. Thank you. And through the chair, I have a couple of questions before making a motion, but I was wondering the one thing that I had on my list, ‘cause you covered off a bunch of my stuff, which was the triplex, the duplexes, was just the Upper Thames Conservation Authority comments. I just was hoping to hear from staff when and how they might be addressed.

I understand that the communication from Upper Thames came after the report was completed. So I just was hoping to find out when those will be addressed in this process. I’ll go staff through the chair. Yes, we did receive the letter after the report had been submitted, so weren’t able to address that in the report.

So with regard to where additional residential units are permitted, we’re limited by the wording of the Planning Act, which includes, and I don’t have the specific wording in front of me, but it’s something to the effect of an official plan may not include policies that prohibit the development of additional residential units in association with a single detached, semi-detached, or townhouse dwelling. So we aren’t able to include policies in the official plan as per that provision of the Act that specifically prohibit additional residential units, even if it’s in a floodplain. However, we do have policies in the London Plan that speak to development, that would limit the addition of units, and such units would also be subject to a section 28 permit under the Conservation Authorities Act, which is administered by the Conservation Authority, and so they would have jurisdiction there to determine whether or not the additional unit is permitted in association with their, or as per their regulations. So presumably, such a unit would not meet those requirements and would not be able to get that permit.

So however, because of the wording of the Act, we’re not able to put that in the zoning regulation, and we’ll just be communicating that to potential applicants if they are within a floodplain area. Councillor. Thank you, yes, that does answer my question, and I appreciate that very much. And I look forward to the future report back in January, or early next year, that we’ll address a lot of the other concerns that we are hearing.

One thing I was hoping to put on the floor as an addition to the staff recommendation is a motion to direct staff to remove the bedroom limit citywide and report back on possible limits in near-campus neighborhoods. It being noted that we’ve already directed Civic Administration to undertake a review of the current five bedroom limit and to report back at a future medium pack. So this would kind of move this along a little bit, and then the other pieces, as you’ve mentioned, coming to us in early next year. So I did circulate that language.

I did circulate an updated one, and this is the previous one. There’s just like a couple wording tweaks, but don’t worry. So I was just hoping to get that up on the screen for other Councillors to look at and see if I have a seconder. Okay, if you refresh your screens, it should be there.

Okay. If you’ve got it, I’ll go to the Councillor. Thank you, yes, and if I do have a seconder, I just wanted to speak to it briefly after. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis seconds, go ahead.

Perfect, thank you. Yeah, so this has come up a couple times since I have been elected. So from what we’ve heard from the community and for people, especially in my ward, so I cover Wartley in Old South, as well as a couple of other areas, but there are a lot of existing infill projects that could have increased capacity, but they’re running into a bit of an issue with the bedroom limit. There’s some very wide lots and long lots in Old South that could benefit from being able to have up to four units on site, but of course, to make it financially viable for a lot of these small homeowners, they would like to see the possibility to have additional bedrooms without having to go through a minor variance, which of course is an option, but that is about a 60-day turnaround, about $1,600 additional cost.

And as we know, we’re trying to move stuff as quickly as possible. And I personally, as many other Councillors hope to see a lot of infill projects done as of right. So that is why I was hoping to have staff move forward on this, and then come back to us at a later date with different requirements for near-campus neighbourhoods, because I do know that as a whole different kettle of fish, as we have talked about in the past, and I do think that probably requires a different approach, but that being said, the rest of the city, I think there are many opportunities for us to be identifying, which is why I want to bring this forward. And just in regards to wording, I did chat a bit with staff and having near-campus neighbourhoods, that those kind of like supersede as almost like secondary plans.

So when I do say city-wide, this specific motion would not be touching near-campus neighbourhoods to give any comfort to fellow Councillors who might take issue with that. So happy to answer any questions, and thank you for letting me share that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

Deputy Mayor of those. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’ll just say, I was happy to second this. If this didn’t include a provision that would for now speak to areas outside of near-campus neighbourhoods, I might have a little bit of a different concern, because I think that needs a more fulsome discussion when we get those updates. However, outside of the near-campus neighbourhoods, I think that this is a good step forward.

I am well aware of some of the comments that were made about you running to the five bedroom limit, maximizing for limiting the number of units you can have on a property, and I think that this helps address that right away. So I’m comfortable moving forward with this, and I look forward to the staff update in January with some other steps, because along with Councillor Frank and Mr. Fleming and others, I do have some concerns about the limitations on duplexes as well, and how that can be addressed. I think the commentary around heights and gabling and those averages are very valid too.

So I know that staff heard those, and I’m sure that we will see some additional changes brought forward in January, but I think this is a good step. Sometimes it’s better to take things and baby steps and make changes now, and then make some more changes later than to try and wait until we’ve got everything ironed out to exactly where we want it, so happy to support this. Thank you. Other Councillors would like to address it.

Go to the mayor. Yes, so I’m supportive of what’s proposed here. I just want to confirm with our staff that the wording has contemplated, and I know Councillor Franky said you checked with them. He’s okay, because the way I would read it is motion to direct staff to remove the bedroom limit citywide comma and report back.

So I think what you mean is remove the bedroom limit citywide with the exception of the near campus neighborhood and report back on possible limitations in the near camp. Like I almost, I wonder if you need like that extra piece to be very definitive so that it’s not interpreted the wrong way by the public, because I support what Councillor Frank is saying, and I support the direction that colleagues would like to go on this, at least the ones who’ve spoken so far, but I think we should be very clear. So there’s no misunderstanding from the public’s perspective, even if staff knows. So I don’t know if we could adjust that in the spirit of the same language, and I don’t know if staff have any recommendations on that, but I just, the way I read it right now, I wouldn’t want.

If I showed that to three people on my street, they would read it a different way than I think Councillor Frank is intending it to go. So I’ll go to staff for a comment on that. Through the chair. In terms of the language at the very end of the sentence, that’s that direction back in terms of the report on the five bedroom limit.

We’re generally satisfied with the language, but we can see your point, and if Council’s discretion, you can certainly amend it. Thanks. So Mayor, would you like to make a friendly amendment to just some language cleanup? Even if you want to put in it being noted to make it clear, like if the language is fine, it’s fine.

My, we’ve talked many times about us asking a motion then gets misinterpreted by the public, because they read it a different way than maybe it’s intended. I always, obviously care about how it’s going to be operationalized. I appreciate staff being very clear on that, but I think we just want to be as clear as possible on this given the concerns that some members of the public would have in the near campus neighborhood about the history and sensitivity to the units there. Now, I’m not saying that that means I’m opposed to increasing it, but I appreciate that, you know, that we should take a bit of a different perspective to look into that particular area.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I actually did originally have the word accept, but then I was chatting a bit more staff. So I don’t know if I could maybe perhaps direct this to Mr.

Adima for answer, just because we had debated this and the concept of near campus neighborhoods being essentially the same as secondary plans, which override any citywide thing. So maybe I will not try to answer that because I don’t have the right planning language and direct it over to staff to try and answer. I’ll go to staff for comments. Through the chair, thank you.

And we did review this language earlier. And my interpretation of the language is that the citywide does not include near campus neighborhoods, but I can see where the mayor is coming from and how it could be read differently. So I don’t see an issue with the additional language that he provided. I think the motion is clear that it’s to direct us to remove the limit everywhere except, and then initiate a review of what we could do within your campus neighborhoods, whether it’s maintain a bedroom limit or come up with an alternate approach.

So I think the language is fine. Councilor. Thank you. Okay, just then for clarity in the media, which does a great job of sharing all of the work that we do, but just in case somebody’s reading this without reading the context, I’d love to include the word accept, which I originally had it in a different motion, but I’m just wondering where to put it here.

May accept near campus neighborhoods and report back on possible limits. Yeah, so maybe just after the comma say, accept near campus neighborhoods comma and report back on if that’s possible. I’ll go to the seconder, is that okay with you? Okay, so we’ve made a slight change motion that’s been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion? Councilor Trusson. I just wanna, I’m a guest here. I’m not gonna be making any motions or voting.

And I promise not to speak at this meeting, which I think I’m just violating, but I just wanna say thank you mayor for putting that in because I know that that would have created some ambiguity. And I just think it’s wonderful that you’ve cleared that up. So thank you for doing that. Thank you, Councilor.

Any other comments? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. closing the motion carries forward to zero.

We’ll need to now to move the staff recommendation as amended, Councilor Frank, seconder by Deputy Mayor Lewis. And I’ll go to the mayor for comments. Yes, so I wanna speak to the main motion as well. So first off, I wanna appreciate first, the decision of council to provide this direction to staff in advance of the announcement on the housing accelerator fund.

As you saw from Minister Frazier’s commentary, this is something that they thought we could be ambitious on. And now, as you see him engage with other municipalities using us as an example to try to push increased density across the country. I’ll also add that since we did this direction, Minister Kalandra at the provincial level has provided a letter to 50 of the largest, 50 mayors of the largest cities in the province, asking them to engage on a number of items related to the task force recommendations on housing affordability in the province. In that letter, also indicated a desire to engage with us on the notion of moving from what the province previously directed at three units to four.

In other words, I see that as an expression of their intention to want to make that something across the province, probably seeing cities like London being a little bit ambitious on this and maybe saying this is something that might make sense across the province in the way. So that engagement is happening to you. So I think what we’re doing here is setting a really good tone for the province. It’s also getting a little bit ahead of the curve.

I like the way that we’re approaching this by bringing forward the permissions now, but recognizing that there’s some discussions that we have to have and some tweaks that we’ll have to make to it. And ultimately, there may be provincial direction that just makes this mandatory across the province that would require us to hopefully not adjust because we’re already ahead of the curve. And hopefully, people are already contemplating and getting ready to build those units rather than waiting for a provincial direction in their city. So I just wanted to add that context for colleagues.

I think what we’re doing here is the right approach. I appreciate all of your support on this all the way through, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you see this become a provincially mandated approach down the road should those discussions go the way that I would expect them to go. And given the provinces challenges with creating the number of homes that they need to create, this might make sense elsewhere as well. So I just wanted to provide that context for colleagues.

Thank you. Any other comments or I call the vote? Councillor Trussall. Yes, on the main motion, I was really pleased to hear all the representations that were made today.

And I think they can all be harmonized in terms of the different types of issues that are in the room. I do think as the Ward Councillor for the near campus neighborhood, I do want to say that we do have areas in the Ward that are not represented by community associations. So when we talk about staff consulting with the community associations, I want to make sure that I’m included in that discussion because I have a good sense in my head where the boundaries are and where there might be community communities that are not within the scope of the community associations. I don’t think that needs an amendment.

I just wanted to point that out. I also want to make sure that we’re okay procedurally in that we closed the meeting and then we made an amendment, which seems to have unanimous support, but I just want to make sure there aren’t any possible issues there. But I do want to stress that some of the things that I heard from the gallery on all sides, we’re very, very promising. And I look forward to what’s going to come forward with some ideas for additional types of affordable housing in these units.

And I think there has to be sensitivity to certain neighborhoods, but I get the sense from this discussion that that’s going to be there. So for now, when this comes to council, I don’t have an issue with it. And I just want to put out that procedural question. And with that, I’ll yield back.

And thank you for allowing me to come here as a guest this week. Thank you, Councilor, I did confer with the clerk and she advised on the procedures, but I’ll go to the clerk right now to confirm that. Through the chair, the public participation portion of the meeting was closed. And that is when the committee deliberates is after the public participation meeting is closed.

Thank you. Any other comments for a call to vote? Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, moving on to 3.5 regarding 50 King Street and 399 right out street. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Thank you. I will go to the applicant. You have five minutes, the applicant online.

Oh, I see you up there, sorry, sir. Yes. I just got this your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair and members of committee. My name is Scott Allen, I’m with MHBC planning. We’re acting on behalf of the applicant. With me today are several representatives of the York developments, the applicant in this project who are willing to answer questions.

As they may arise, at this time, we’d like to just briefly indicate that we reviewed the staff report and agree with its recommendations as well as its findings. I’d also like to indicate that in particular that we agree that the project is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, that it conforms to the policy direction of the Official Plan, the London Plan, and that it helps support revitalization of both the downtown and the Thames River corridor considerations. With that in mind and with approval of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendment before you today, the applicant is looking forward to expeditiously advancing site plan approval with consideration for the various site plan matters identified in the staff recommendation. Thank you, and we’ll gladly answer any questions committee members may have.

Thank you. I’ll now go to the gallery for public comments. Hello, Mr. Quinton, please welcome.

Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Chuck Quinton, the lands at the forks of the Thames on the block surrounded by Dundas streets and ride out in the river itself for designated heritage and have been so for decades. Equally as important, these lands are the crown jewel of the city of London in its downtown rich in nature, connecting three tributaries of the river and serving as home for two of London’s most significant heritage buildings. The evolution of several downtown towers and the commitment to furthering the densification of the core is not in question.

Bravo City of London for fostering this critical density now and into the future to ensure the success of commerce culture and the vibrancy of the thriving downtown. There is ample opportunity tower up across the core, areas that are vacant, in decline, parking lots, neighborhoods like Soho and more. Should be the priority for medium and high density mixed use downtown development. The city’s new strategic plan prioritizes growth and development that is well planned and considers use intensity and form.

It calls for intensification to strategic locations in a way that maximizes existing assets and resources. A quality city master plan like the London plan designates the preserved spaces for greening, public use, art culture heritage and other uses contiguous with the commerce, transit, housing, densification, other strategies essential to a vibrant core. The planning application in question is not upholding. The London plan, the downtown plan are moved forward, the community improvement area plan or the downtown heritage conservation district plan.

It is in violation of a designation under the Ontario Heritage Act meant to preserve, maintain, reconstruct, restore and manage land in property of historical architecture and archeological, recreational aesthetic, natural and scenic significance. Clearly a big investment is hard to pass by the spy and London should not. Let’s encourage our visionary leaders to work with York development accommodating their desire to build while at the same time creating a landmark that defines London and contributes to a strong sense of belonging and a place without sacrificing the long-term return and impacts of not just preserving but vitalizing the historic, natural and culturally significant riverfront forks of the Thames. The scale of the proposed development the two math of towers.

The shadows they will cast a congestion from so many full-time habitants, the years of construction to build 100 stories, the overpowering of two significant heritage buildings and the heritage of the river itself is not a good urban plan for the benefit of all the stakeholders. It’s not in line with existing city plans and policies. I’m done reading. I believe that everybody here is looking for the best interest of the future of London, Ontario.

And this development is just too big a scale for the size of the property. It unnecessarily encroaches on heritage lands. It puts in jeopardy the jewel of the London core of the forks of the Thames. And I think it should be sent back for redesign.

It should uphold the London development plan that does say that no development shall go beyond the river face front of the jail building. We should uphold that, stick to it and let them come up with a design within those criteria. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Quinn. I’ll ask, okay, I should have said this at the beginning. I’ll ask that there’s no helpers, either booze or clapping. And the reason for that is because we want a fair opportunity for everyone to express their opinion regardless if you agree with it or not.

And it can be an intimidation factor that might lead to someone not speaking up. And that’s what we don’t want to see. So I’ll ask that you keep your helpers to yourself. Thank you very much.

Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Beverly. How many city council members would say? I think it’s a great idea to sell city property within the heritage designation in Greenbelt area to a developer to erect a high-rise tower.

I don’t think many would. The 2022 aerial imagery plan or map of this area, the city of London shows city-owned land abutting 399 right out street north. This planning application, OZ9622, involves three properties. Number one, 50 King Street.

Number two, three 99, right out street north and city-owned property. 50 King Street has already been zoned to accommodate a high-rise building. The Middlesex County submission had basically a height of 95 meters, 152 units, and 27 stories. The York development wants 176 meters and probably around 440 units in the 53-floor tower.

Sorry, 53 tower that is that high. The 399 right out street north has no high-rise designation or zoning. This area appears on the planning application. The attempt is to rezone a part of 399 right out street north and land owned by the city of London that is directly west of 50 King Street.

This rezoning would allow for a 43-story high-rise. I’m assuming that some of the city-owned land on the 2022 aerial imagery map now belongs to York development. I hope I’m wrong. The city-owned land makes up approximately 50% of the area designate to accommodate a second tower.

If this is true, the city staff recommended the city sell this land to the developer and then it was approved by city council. I hope I’m wrong in this scenario. If this has been done, this gives the appearance of London’s own Doug Ford’s Green Belt. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker, Mr. Levin. Please go ahead, you have five minutes.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to point out, it was good to read in the report that in the week after National Truth and Reconciliation Day, there will be consultation with First Nations during the archaeological assessment. But I also want to point out that the buildings aren’t going to be built in the near term.

And that’s based on primarily the report of your engineers and the various holding provisions required for some studies. And I know you read the report, but I’m going to read from the comments in the report, specifically the engineers. And before I start, I seem to recall that in the past, some of these comments would have resulted in the application being considered premature. So I’m not sure why it’s not at this time.

The applicant has advised that the downtown areas concerned currently experiencing significant sanitary capacity issues. Despite this sewer engineering recognizes the importance of higher densities that align with the city’s growth. Housing requirements and is actively engaged in discussions on ways to enhance the density of the downtown area and improve the existing sewer system. The sewer engineering division will be exploring opportunities to develop a comprehensive downtown growth management strategy to identify capacity improvements to address downtown London’s growth needs.

So when’s the strategy coming? Sewer engineering supports the proposed rezoning request, however, holding provisions shall be put in place until sufficient sanitary capacity can be demonstrated. Also water servicing based on the outcome of the core area water servicing study, water engineer recommends a holding provision until adequate water servicing capacity can be demonstrated. Now I remember a few years ago, there was a study called the core area servicing study, which indicated costs for water sanitary and storm sewers would be about $350 million.

Certainly some of that work has already been completed, such as separating combined sewers. So kind of without the cost information, it seems it should be a premature application. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Next speaker. I’ll go to gentlemen as making his way through. So I’ll go to you first, sir. Thank you.

Please state your name and you have five minutes. Yeah, my name is Charles Spina. I’m a retired business person. I’ve been a resident here for 35 years, and I’ve had senior management roles in various organizations and I’ve consulted to constructors and municipalities.

So to the matter at hand, for me at least, the issue with these two buildings is their height. And when I say that, I just wanna make sure that people understand nothing that I say should be taken as a negative or disparagement of York developments. York developments, I know the principles. They’ve done work for me on a previous project.

They have a very strong quality ethic. They have a design aesthetic, which in this day and age where we seem to have abandoned design panels and other considerations of style and visual appearance, that’s really important. But I will also say that, and this is not news, that height restrictions exist for a reason. The logic is incontrovertible.

Almost all cities have them. They have them for a reason. And cities with much higher densities have those restrictions and they’re, I’m thinking of Berlin, Germany. Density of maybe six times, seven times London’s, just approved what they call a residential high rise, the highest building, residential building in their history, and it’s gonna be 35 stories high.

So that is the issue for me. And I’m gonna suggest that it’s gonna be an issue, and it’s an issue for a number of people. And I know it’s not news because I know that I’ve read the comments of various counselors that the height of those buildings is problematic. So I’ll terminate my comments with that.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. I’ll go up to Mr. Fontana, welcome.

Mr. Chairman, Joe Fontana, 19 King Street. You have five minutes, please go ahead, sir. This site is like no other in the city of London.

And it’s not a question of whether or not we should have development or non-no development. It’s a question of good development. Previous councils have designated downtown area, and specifically the forks of the Thames, the crucible of our very birthplace. And therefore we should take a little bit of more, care about the kind of planning and development that you’ve heard from some previous speakers.

We have a unique opportunity in the city, and I know for years and years and years, we’ve sort of abandoned our rivers. And yet the most cities around the world, they celebrate our rivers. We finally learned from that, and we wanted to open them up, and people have come forward to open up our river. But now what are we gonna do?

We’re gonna essentially put some buildings, a 53 story building, and a 43 story building. So no one else will be able to see this river unless you’re fortunate, like some of us, that might live close. So as I said, it’s not a question of development. York does an incredible job in the city.

They have done, look at what they’ve done in the past. But I don’t think increasing the density, let alone the height, we should give them what everybody else in the neighborhood has gotten 35 stories. And if they wanna put a second building in, it should be downgraded to at least an 18 or 20 stories. But to essentially create 100 stories of not affordable housing, ‘cause the only people who are gonna be able to afford those houses are those who can pay $3,500 to $4,000 a month.

We have a unique opportunity, and I know previous councils wanted to protect our Victoria Park. You remember an application that was just a Wellington and Wolf, and that there was an outcry, and people said, “No, you can’t cover our Victoria Park.” Well, guess what? The forks of our Thames, the birthplace of this city, that splash pad and that green space is the only defining definition of this city. What are we gonna be able to say to attract tourists to come and see a 53-story building and a 43-story building?

No, this is a very unique place. So it’s not a question of saying no to development. It’s just a question of saying yes to good development that respects the heritage of this particular area, the courthouse, the jailhouse, Labaz Park, the art gallery, the green space around that. So we’ve got a unique opportunity by working with York to essentially come up with something that in fact will enhance that particular look.

Now let me offer a couple of suggestions. Give York what they want, 35 stories. Let the city purchase what they wanted to buy and couldn’t before so that they, in fact, will control the rest of the lands so that we can enhance the forks. We can enhance that crucible and that attraction that we can do it.

So we can have a win-win, let York build a 35-story building that ride out in King. Let the city offer to buy the rest of it. That might be something that you might want to consider. So a lot of options are on the table.

But please, do not make a hasty decision. This is not simply about 53 stories. We’re not New York, we’re not in Ontario. I think as most cities around the world have learned tourism and quality of life is something.

But a 53-story building and a 43-story building doesn’t make any sense. It’s overkill in the most sensitive part of our city. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Please, I would ask that no applause happen. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker. Please go ahead, you have five minutes.

My name’s Annemarie Velastro. Last year, Paul Van Mirberg rejected an eight-story building in his ward. He said that he supports higher densities, but he supports the right density on the right piece of land. Elizabeth Palosa rejected a 12-unit cluster housing on Upper Queens because she said it doesn’t meet the character of the neighbourhood.

And Councillor Steve Lehman beseached Council last year, objecting to a cluster of high-rises on Capulet Avenue, saying it was too dense, even though that was a transit node. So I don’t really want anyone on this committee to consider any of these comments as nimmeism. And only a few weeks ago, Sean Lewis stated that he doesn’t like public participation meetings because everyone who comes down here are naysayers. Okay, so maybe they just have a different view of the city than what the committee has.

So I kind of agree with all the comments that were spoken of tonight, but I really want to address the issue of climate change because Councillor Lehman was on the news saying that this is good for climate change, reducing the whole issue of climate change to being able to walk to the Grand Theatre. Climate change is about science, and there’s ample an ocean full of science that tells you why high-rises are bad for climate change. And that’s because they emit a lot of heat. They create heat zones.

They have their climate controlled, and so all the hot air from inside a building goes outside, which increases the outside temperature, talks nothing about issues about resources, and there’s actually scientific papers that tell you what the best sort of buildings are needed to work with the climate change. This building is far higher than any tree canopy for cooling, and I really would appreciate it if you were framed from using climate change as a former greenwashing just to suit your own purposes. So the flip side of this committee is that they always say yes to every planning application that comes before them, and that’s why every single developer inflates their proposal. I can’t remember the last time an application came before this committee that was in the rules of the London Plan.

Every single one of them is inflated, and when you’re asking for zoning amendments, that’s an indication that’s already too intense, and yet this committee just pushes that aside. The last thing I want to say is, the staff has made a comment, endorsed this building for economics. That’s one of the reasons. And Councilor Prabell owns a restaurant downtown, and so I’m asking officially tonight that he recues himself from this debate.

This committee needs to have show integrity here. There’s already been a number of complaints of the integrity commissioner. So if you own a business downtown, I don’t think that you’re in a position to vote on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Look to the next speaker. Please serve if you give us your name again, and you have five minutes. Hello, members of PEC, John Mark Metray.

I wasn’t going to say anything, but I want to prove Sean Lewis wrong, and say there is at least one yay-sayer here tonight. I’ll just a couple comments, the mention that this isn’t affordable housing. I would just ask the committee to consider if you remove stories from this building, think about every one of those people that would be living in those stories, now having to compete with the rest of us for affordable housing. So it is supply and demand, and more supply is good at any price point.

And the other point I’ll add, there’s been some comments about back to the river. The current building, as far as I can tell, the property has got a surface level parking lot in between right out in the river. And as best as I can tell from the site plan, is there’s actually going to be a public corridor going from right out to the river. So if anything, I see that as an improvement over what’s currently there.

We have to walk across the parking lot. So for those reasons, I’m in support. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Jim Easton, I live at 21 King. Something everybody’s not been thinking about here is the parking, okay?

We’re adding 550 parking spots. There’s already 150 there that are full every day. And to say we want our city green and bicycles, I’m sorry, even electric cars got to have a place to park. All right, as it is, whenever anything’s happening at Budweiser Gardens, we have parking problems in our building, they park in our parking lot and every other building around.

But every day, those parking lots are full, right? Every day, that park is filled. And those people are driving there to bring their kids there to play in that splash pad. We’ve already shut down Thames Pool.

So we’re going to close some more down here because there’ll be no place for these people to go, all right? And that’s something we have to look at. It’s fine and dandy to say we’re doing green and all that in density downtown, but there’s a lot of other vacant properties in this city downtown that could be used for developments like this. And as far as a 53 story go, last I knew we were known to be the forest city, not the concrete city.

And I think you all need to take that into consideration. Thank you, sir, I’ll look for the next speaker. Mr. Fleming, you have five minutes, please go ahead.

Sure, I speak to you today, just representing myself, not as a business or a client. And I’m speaking as somebody that has been involved in downtown planning for 30 years, plus the city of London was involved in a number of downtown master plans and heavily involved in the preparation of the London plan. And I just say, when I look at this application, to me it’s something that is four square with the goals that we’ve set forward for downtown for our forks, 800 residential units into downtown right at the forks, two tight towers that I think are well designed, that will be a positive context and actually iconic for London. We’ll show up on our postcards in the future.

I think a really good ground plane, which is going to be comfortable for pedestrians, a welcoming for pedestrians and something that doesn’t turn its back on the street. And I think importantly, I’m not sure if it’s all there, but from what I’ve seen, pretty good job of its relationship to the river as well. So at the base, it’s creating a framework for that most important park space in our city at the forks. When I look at it and I think about all of this being at the center for rapid transit, very walkable to our restaurants, all of those things done to us place, all of those things that we’ve been investing in over the last 30 years, I really do appreciate it.

I agree with the staff recommendation. I think it’s great to see the private sector stepping up and doing what so many of our plans have been asking the private sector to do. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name, ma’am, and you have five minutes. Yes, my name is Dawn Erskine and I address the 1718 Parker’s app. I wanted to point out that I certainly understand, I was on city council for 12 years.

I was on board of control and I was the chair of planning. So I understand what the people here, making the decisions have to go through. You have to look at these giant buildings, you know, that just will not work in that particular area. One of the big concerns too is the traffic.

There’s only two lanes on there and it’s already busy all the time, very busy. So I don’t, and I haven’t heard any suggestion as to how you’re going to correct that idea. The heritage, I’m concerned about the castle and the jail that is the center of our city and very important. And anyone that knows construction knows that there’s going to be cracking of the castle and the jail there and it will no longer be a centerpiece for London.

I want to know, again, I’m going to emphasize the road. It’s too late. How are you going to get another 800 units in that area where it’s already jam-packed all the time and the, you know, which was said also the arena, the different avenues in the city that try to use that road. So it is certainly a danger.

We’re losing parking, park land again. It is supposed to be the heart of London that was set up there. It is our heart. All of the people in the city appreciate that area.

You’re going to also have little children playing in the little pond there for them in the little swimming pool. I would be very concerned if I had a young child that was going to play in that park with another 800 units on top of what’s already here that is going to create a very dangerous situation for the children. The heights, I’m blown away at the heights that they want to put out there. It is just too high.

And I don’t object to one building like was zoning there, but that is absolutely too high, too much for London. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look for the next speaker.

Please, sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. I’ll try not to take all five of them there. Anyway, my name is Jim Donnelly. The last time I appeared at this August gathering was to oppose the rezoning of that particular property brought to you by Mr.

Fleming. We just spoke here recently. The place did not develop. We’re pleased about that.

Give you a little background. First of all, I’m a big fan of York development and Sam and Ali Soufan. I’ve known them both for decades. And I think they do great work.

There’s no question about that in my mind. Now, I have lived there. I’m an original at 19 King Street, which means I’ve been there for 35 years next month. So I’ve watched a lot of changes, everything from the Covid Garden to the John Lebats Center and the many, many cranes around today.

My concern here, when we look at the area, it basically, without going over the heritage argument, but in fact, it is the heart of London. It should, in fact, be preserved. It’s what belongs on the postcards and it is now. You can get big pictures of high rises almost anywhere.

I look out my window. I’m on the penthouse of the 14th floor. And I look out and I can see a 35 unit that was just finished north of me up on Talbot. That’s already pretty high.

When I try and envision, and I did bring a couple other folks to look at it, when I try and envision 20 more stories on top of that, it’s already at the extent that it probably should be. I understand the city’s moved to 35 stories in the downtown, zero lot lines and all the progressive items. And I do think, and New York has built a fine establishment just down the street on King Street, down by the across the way from the Covid Garden. But in this particular case, I think you could find a better place.

So my concerns are as follows. I rise in the overshadowing of the original prime heritage forks would be a major mistake and loss for both current and future London citizens. My other concern is it was a last minute amendment that showed up on September the 13th, which I did send to council along with a couple maps. That particular amendment talked about the city looking to rezone.

And none of that was brought out in the earlier application. It sort of was slid into a small paragraph that even I know some council members I’ve spoken with had not really taken note of until it was pointed out. So that’s a concern in terms of timing, in terms of presentation, in terms of transparency. I also think that we have to look at the ability to maintain this historic site, really a trigger back to public ownership.

At least some portion of it, as I heard indicated earlier. In the event, the place is zoned for one tower. It was 22 stories previously. It’s now would be 35 stories under the new London plan.

And I really don’t object to one 35 story unit at the corner of King and right out. I do have trouble with it overcrowding the place. I think if we did that, if York was able to extract its profit and its money back from the original investment, because even though the city is looking to rezone, which will increase the value of the property from when they bought it, I don’t think that’s in your interest. And I think if they can be compensated in some reasonable fashion, either with land swap and or cash involvement where the city could purchase.

The city missed out by $2 million on a $30 million purchase. Not to be too fine to point on it, but that almost misses the test of materiality. Because it’s a lot of money for most of us. It was not a lot of money for the city.

And the city had many, many reasons why it should have kept it under their control. You perhaps have an opportunity now, because York will look can and will only do what you allow. They have the permission for one tower. There is a 35 story limit.

And they should be allowed to do that. But then you should perhaps negotiate with them and see if in fact you can’t get that back under your control. ‘Cause I know the damage that was done when a building was built right beside ours at 19 King, and we’re fully poured concrete building. The chances that poor little castle or jail from the early 1800s surviving, that level of vibration is almost none.

So I think you really want to consider that. You could save all this by protecting our heritage, protecting our buildings, giving York either for all of the property or some portion of the property taking it back under your control. This particular point, you don’t want to see them suffer any financial loss nor do I, as I said. They’re in— 30 cents.

Wait until it’s a long time. And my last comment to you is, I heard talk about building as high as we do. Somebody said, well look at New York. Now New York, many high rises, all sorts of.

The reason is New York is built on granite. It’s granite just below the surface. London is in a riverbed. You may recollect those of you who were on council many years ago, that when the black prairies come out, they had to deal with quicksand.

You may recollect the quicksand that showed up on Richmond when you went to look at your underpass. It’s not as easy to do downtown. And there was a big lake here for a period of time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Look for the next speaker. Please ma’am, give us your name and you have five minutes. So I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.

Can you speak up a bit or just close to the mic? My name is Susan Britt. Is that better? Yep, that’s great.

I live at 692 Cheap Side Street. And I’m basically just going to plead with the city council in general that this building is going to cause several years of disruption downtown, which we already have a lot of. And the reason I’m concerned about that, not only am I concerned about the courthouse and the jail and a lot of the other things that have been said here this evening, I’m a small business owner and I own a delivery company. Do you have any idea how all of this has affected my business and we get hit enough by government.

So I’m pleading that you guys really think this out that we can do something great between York development and the piece of property that’s there and come to a great conclusion. And I appreciate you listening to me. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll look for the next speaker. Please give us your name and me and you have five minutes. Hey, my name is Susan Bentley. Much is made in the report about the retention and honoring of the old courthouse structure.

We are assured that the courthouse will be retained by York developments, bravo. However, I didn’t see any proposed use for it and I may just have not read the report thoroughly enough. At the very least, I hope that in any negotiations with the developers, our planners and council are able to ensure that the general public will continue to have direct access to this landmark historic building, which is so culturally important that it’s often used as a pictorial symbol of the city of London. Londoners should be able to continue their use of the courthouse and I would like to see its use as a public resource for special events, weddings and the like continue into the future.

It was built with taxpayers’ dollars and in a moral sense therefore belongs to Londoners. I’m somewhat comforted by the fact that the courthouse seemingly has the highest levels of heritage protection on it, including a heritage easement. And I trust that council and this committee in particular will ensure that this protection is exercised to the fullest extent possible. Thank you.

Thank you, I look for any other speakers before I go to those that are visiting us online. I’ll go with a clerk and ask, I’m sorry, sir. Please go ahead, give us your name and you have five minutes. Hi, my name is Martin of 19 King Street and I agree with all the comments opposing the development.

I would like to see no power of any stories there, but 22 to 35, why not? I like the option of splitting the land, a win-win situation. And I agree with all the opposing comments and with the previous lady just said about the preserving the courthouse. Let’s ask ourselves this, how much does it cost or is it possible to repair something that’s damaged beyond repair?

If you have that kind of vibration going on and our building got damaged by a much smaller building further away and that’s an old building and it crumbles and it’s beyond repair, there’s no amount of money you can put on it. No matter what easement of protection there is, it’s gone and there’s no way you can rebuild it. So I mean, my other issues are mainly infrastructure, the traffic, you can’t expand. I’m on 19 King Street and 21 King should be side there, can expand our way, you can expand only into the parking lots.

I see no plan to do a four lane, five lane or six lane to accommodate the extra cars and traffic. I see no plan for sewage infrastructure because the density there, we can’t handle, our comfort cannot handle it. We have overflow all the time. A smell, people puke, I’ve seen people be really disgusted by what’s going on, so basically what I’m looking for is some reasonable understanding and first before making hasty decisions, looking into infrastructure traffic, protecting heritage and climate change as well, like follow the science.

I mean, there’s some smart people who have voiced some very smart comments here and I’m not gonna repeat all of them, I’ll go beyond five minutes, but what I think wasn’t mentioned as well yet ‘cause it came here a little late after work, is there’s a legal limit of $1,200 to campaign financing. I looked into it and you have York members and family donating the maximum $1,200. Well, I could easily donate a Rolex or cash or anything that— Sir, I’ll caution never be— You’re entering into not a good area right now. So please keep your arguments to the facts at end.

So keeping away from that, it’s very suspicious as to who’s on the planning committee and who got most of their campaign financing and where that came from. I’ll leave it at that and the police consider those things mentioned and what I’m really seeing downtown with the plan, you already have the highest density there and what’s gonna happen where density needs to be increased is where there’s suburbs, where there’s malls and smaller housing, smaller density. Why pack downtown that’s already very dense to make it even more dense? That’s just opposite logic and doesn’t make sense.

I’ll leave it at that. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Last clerk for those online.

Nancy, Toski, please. Toski, please go ahead. You have five minutes. Thank you.

I can’t make you see me. That’s no great disadvantage. Oh, there I go. I wrote a letter to many of you and so I don’t want to repeat much of that or repeat much of what’s already been said about the importance of the courthouse.

I do want to point out that it wasn’t simply the birthplace of London. It was the birthplace of the entire London district which extended to the west and east of London and all the way up to the Bruce Peninsula. So that what it did was to establish London to govern our development and to govern the development of this whole wide area. It is national historic sites for very important reasons.

But what I want to concentrate on is the fact that while I also respect much that York development is done, I don’t think this, and I think this building could be very effective and really interesting in another site. I feel strongly that this is not the right site for it simply because it belittles this in extremely important courthouse. It is not only Paul with two large towers, but it also projects the appearance of these large white squares caused by the protruding walls. A very interesting design feature, but the squares are so large that they also work to the little little courthouse.

Also, it’s a request to extend the building all the way to the street and to raise the podium where it goes through, these would be further ways of diminishing the size of the courthouse. And of course, it cuts off the all-important link between the courthouse and all aspects of the river. One of the comments in the London plan under downtown place types is that the downtown should connect strongly to our birthplace at the forks of the Thames, where we will create beautifully landscape people places that Londoners will gravitate toward. And we will cherish our heritage streetscapes to tell the story of our past and create a unique and enriching setting that will give our core a strong sense of place and identity.

It does rather look as if York is trying to create a new sense of place and identity here where the new towers will be the focus of street postcards in the future, rather than the unique courthouse that is our historic and all-important source of identity. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Totsky.

Any other speakers online, Clerk? Through the chair, there’s no one else online. Look to the gallery for anyone else that would like to address the committee. Please go ahead.

You have five minutes to give us your name, please. Thank you. Well, with a mic. Okay, my first time doing this, sorry guys.

No, that’s all right. And I’m very nervous. Thank you, we can hear you. Yeah, okay, good.

Everybody said everything. It’s all been said before that I think this is an extremely bad idea. Blocking the Riverview, buildings are too tall, dwarfing the courthouse, dwarfing everything. Eldenhouse, like everything.

This is a historic neighborhood, which will no longer be a historic neighborhood. It’ll be a building in Toronto or any other big city. And for some reason, people seem to think that being a building, being a city like Toronto is like a really great thing. Well, it’s a really great thing.

Everybody’s leaving Toronto to come to another city that isn’t quite as big as Toronto. It’s gonna cause more pollution, it’s more traffic, more just less green space. It’s nothing that excites me when I came from Toronto to London a long, long time ago to go to school. I stayed in London because it wasn’t Toronto.

And for some reason, people think that, wow, Toronto, this is great. Well, no, this is London. And London is great. And we have a great river that we’re gonna lose.

The minute one building goes up by the river, oh, watch it, just one, boom, boom, boom. It’s gonna be like a chain reaction of buildings along the river. I find it extremely, extremely depressing. Yeah, and all the extra cars, the extra cars, 500 extra cars in the neighborhood.

I mean, I’ve lived on Wilson, I live on John Street now. Where are they going to go these cars? Where are they gonna park? Where is, it’s not a great idea.

And one 30-story building, way more than enough. And why is it that developers don’t have to follow the rules? As soon as there’s a rule they don’t like, they just put in an application, let’s change the rules. Why don’t we keep the rules?

The rules were made for a reason. And the reasons are a lot of people thought about these rules. Well, suddenly they’re not important. Yes, and I’m also, I am concerned about which Councillors don’t receive donations from say York development.

Because are they, is that influencing your voting on either one? Okay, again, I’ll caution you, talk to the facts at hand, please. We’ll have an integrity commissioner. Okay, all right, the blocking the river, celebrating the river, revitalizing the river, that was the plan, it is no longer the plan.

And I think I really strongly believe it should be the plan. The more green space, the healthier the city, the healthier the children, the healthier everybody. And yeah, I guess that’s it. Thanks guys.

Thank you. I did it. Any other comments, ma’am, I’m sorry, the clerk didn’t get your name. Could you give us your name, please?

Could you say it into the mic so we can hear you? Sorry to bring you back up. Joe, J-I-L, L, Jacobson. Thank you very much.

That’s a win, please. Any other speakers? Okay, seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. W.

Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, four to zero. Thank you, before I go to committee, there are a couple of points raised in the BPM that I’d just like to go to staff on. First of all, I’d like to address sewage and infrastructure concerns.

Staff could comment on that, please. Right, thank you and through the chair. Staff absolutely recognize the importance of intensification in the downtown while protecting water quality in our river. So we do have the existing core area servicing strategy as well as the city center servicing strategy which laid out the roadmap for sewer separation in the downtown.

And we’ve been able to leverage the recent rapid transit projects for much of the servicing upgrades and that sewer separation. What we need now is to make sure we get that sewage out of the downtown in two green way. We start a treatment plant without increasing overflows to the river and so we are undertaking an update to the previously mentioned studies that will reflect the higher intensities proposed in the rethink zoning plan and the housing pledge of 47,000 new units so that we’re supporting intensification in the downtown, not just for this site but for many sites. We have a number of trunk sewer projects also planned so that we are conveying these flows again while protecting that river.

So we are very much aware of the pressures on their downtown and the need for this servicing and we are actively engaged in finding those solutions and we’re confident that that can progress alongside the development processes. Thank you. We also heard a number of speakers raise concerns about traffic with that high density in that area with the current availability of roads, et cetera. No one’s wondering staff could speak to those concerns.

Good afternoon. This is the World Heart Health Transportation Technologist with City of London. Through you chair, just would like to bring everyone’s attention to major infrastructure project are being implemented. BRD is one of them.

We are expecting it is gonna elevate a lot of traffic and this is downtown area where we are seeing more active transportation, pedestrian cyclist movement and there was a traffic study prepared as well for the site. It recommended that subject development is possible to accommodate under existing infrastructure. Lastly, just would like to close my statement with upcoming mobility master plan. It is gonna look at holistic approach and how we can ease traffic concerns throughout the city.

Thank you. Thank you. I think that will leave the rest for committee members from what they’ve heard. So now I will go to committee with this.

Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you chair. I will move the staff recommendation and I’ll speak to it after you get a seconder identified. Okay.

I’ll look for a seconder, Councillor Frank. So I’ll go to the Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So I’m gonna take a moment to offer a few comments on some of the feedback we heard on this application.

You know, we hear this all the time. These would be great if they’re built on another property. The applicant doesn’t own some of those other properties. The applicant owns this property.

And that’s where they’re proposing to bring a development forward. We heard, you know, the city should buy it back. The city never owned it. It was owned by Middlesex County.

Middlesex County sold the land to the highest bidder. The city was a participant in that process. We were outbid. So the idea that we are going to purchase this land without a reason for us to purchase this land because municipal property acquisitions do require a reason under the Planning Act for us to go forward.

That’s really not going to be something that we’d be undertaking. And then respectfully, when we get to budget time, folks, you will see that there’s not a lot of extra cash to go around. But we also heard some comments about back to the river through this process. I was quite happy to see back to the river stopped, particularly the bridge to nowhere component.

That was going to spend millions of public dollars. Instead, we’re getting a great activation with a courtyard and a public lawn space as well as pocket commercial developments that are river interfacing so that we create that boardwalk cafe sort of sense of experience around Ivy Park. So to me, what we’re seeing with the ground floor commercial space is actually very, very desirable and is in fact consistent with the argument that we need to be focusing on the river as an asset for the city. That it’s being done with private dollars instead of taxpayer dollars, I’m quite happy with.

We retained the public lands in Ivy Park. Yes, there is a rezoning to an OS4 zone. As is noted in the part of that is a result of a request from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority to address the floodplain and make sure that we don’t have building going into the floodplain area of a zone that is currently a CF-1, which would allow for a variety of commercial uses on that site. So I’m quite supportive of that.

We heard about the rules changing and it’s too tall. The old zoning that was on it was the 1989 official plan. The current zoning comes out under the 2016 London plan, which itself is due for updates. We heard staff reference the re-thing zoning process.

Well, that’s ongoing, but that doesn’t mean that we can pause hearing all of the applications that are coming before us currently as a planning committee because we have statutory deadlines to me. And I quite appreciate hearing from Mr. Fleming who put in, well, I don’t know how many hours he put in. I’m pretty sure if we asked him, he wouldn’t know how many hours he put in in leading the London plan construction when it was put together.

But that was 2016. The realities of our world have changed from the housing crisis to the hollowing out of downtown in the commercial vacancy space, putting people downtown, putting 800 units of residential downtown is good for the downtown core. We heard from our staff about the traffic, but I want to give people a comparator. So I checked the traffic volumes on our city website from Thames King Street to Ride Out.

Traffic volume is 2,500. It’s a secondary arterial road classification. In comparison, Bonaventure in my ward has 5,000. It’s the same classification of road.

When you go from Ride Out and head east on King, primary arterial road, and that’s an 11,000 vehicle a day volume, compare that to Oxford Street to the north. Another primary arterial road, 41,000 trips a day. So there is capacity on those roads. Yes, like any road, it is busy right at peak period during the rush hour morning and evening.

So there’s a lot of upsides to these applications. I heard some things that are quite out of order and I appreciate you chair stopping those, impugning the integrity of members of this committee because you don’t like it of element is completely inappropriate. We heard some comments about the heritage, but the heritage building remains. I had the opportunity to ask the applicant about the vibrational pieces of the heritage concerns.

And they were informing me that these are actually digitally sensor monitored, they do this. And I know at 131 King or another tower is going up. Next to Mendez law, Ms. Mendez and I served on the committee of adjustment together back from 2014 to 2018, that abuts her property directly and it hasn’t been a concern.

Everybody praised the Sufans and the York development for the professional job they do. And that’s the thing, they are professionals. They’ve taken these things into account. So I am very supportive of this.

If other comments are made, I may have some additional comments to share. I’m not gonna go there right now. Some of the comments that I heard around heritage and other matters that I will leave for the moment. But I think that when we look at this, it is consistent with where we’re going.

It is consistent as we’ve heard from staff with our rules to intensify to the 47,000. And I appreciate Ms. Ramalu addressing the sewer capacity issues as well. And the important thing to note at the end of the day is there are a number of holding provisions on this application.

And until those are met, the application can’t move forward. And those will be met through discussions between our staff and the applicant at site plan. So very supportive of moving this forward. Any other comments or questions, Councilor Frank?

Thank you, yes. And through the chair, I have a bunch of questions for staff. So I’m hoping to go through at least some of them. I am wondering, given the all the holding provisions, I’m just wondering if we approve this application and goes to Council gets approved, would it still, if certain criteria are not met, for example, we couldn’t figure out the water issues with storm water or sewage.

Would this application then become unfeasible? So I’m just wondering, moving forward, if we do approve it, but the actual holding provisions are not met. What happens? I’ve never seen that.

So I just didn’t know through the chair of staff, what happens? I’ll go to staff through the chair. If it was determined through the review of those holding provisions, say there wasn’t capacity for what’s exactly proposed, it could reduce the higher intensity. But at this point, until those studies are submitted, we don’t know exactly what can be accommodated, but there could be refinements to their proposal, and then it could move forward that way.

Councilor? Thank you. And just to follow up on that through the chair, if it was determined that capacity was not available, then, and the hypothetically had to do, you know, 240 story towers, is that something that would come back? Or would that be dealt since we’ve already approved the highest capacity?

Would that be dealt with that staff level? I’d go to staff through the chair, that would be dealt with through the staff level. Councilor? Thank you.

Yes, that answers one of them. I am wondering, again, following up on some of the questions about heritage. I would just love to hear from staff. Is there less vibration if we were to do 35 stories versus 53 or 43?

Or are some heritage concerns? Is there a different heritage concern between 35 stories and 53 stories through the chair? I’ll go to staff on that question if you’re able to address that. Through the chair, I’m sorry.

I’m not able to quantify a difference between a 53 story tower and a 35 story tower in terms of vibration impacts. There were previous comments shared in terms of the technologies used. And if you have further questions so that I can do my best to answer those. Mr.

Chair, if I may, it’s Peter Kocoros here, Chief William Fisher. Mr. Kocoros, please go ahead. Thank you so much.

To answer that question, there’s a number of factors involved here. Obviously, one is the soil conditions and the type of construction, whether deep casons are to be used or not. That type of building, whether it’s 35 stories or 50, it may be a matter of perhaps going deeper, but I believe the type of construction and any concerns related to vibration, I don’t believe there’ll be a significant difference between the two. And again, I say that generally speaking, as again, we don’t know specific soil parameters and the actual proposed construction technique.

I’d like to go to the applicant on this question regarding mitigation ‘cause concerns, and I think legitimate for a concerns of damage being done to the nearby heritage building. You could kind of outline how those are addressed and building and specific to the counselors. Question regarding is there more cause for concern over a 35 story basis on the height of your building? Thank you, Mr.

Chair and committee members. There would be no difference, whether it would be a five story, a 10 story, a 40 story or a 100 story. All of the vibration happens from grade level down. Once you’re above grade, it’s all putting the pieces of the Lego together.

Typically, vibration control monitors are applied to any building, whether they’re heritage or not, adjacent to and then in the neighborhood. So we would hire a third party, very reputable engineering consulting firm to apply all these digital monitors and monitoring devices and they take automatic reads and populate it into a model. And that would tell us if there’s significant vibration or not. With the distance between the heritage site to the north, the old county courthouse and where our underground parking structure commences, we have sufficient distance to make sure we mitigate any vibrations.

Typically in certain situations, you go right to property line with casons, drilled casons and piles. In this instance, we’ve got over 20 meters between us and the parking structure or between our parking structure and the heritage building. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, appreciate those explanations.

I am wondering, I heard differing views from the gallery, but is the splash pad at Ivy Park and the public washrooms going to be retained throughout this project? Again, I’ll go to staff with this and if you can’t answer, I won’t go to the applicant. Through you, Mr. Chair, there is no changes proposed to the splash pad or the bathroom pavilion.

Councillor. Thank you, glad to hear that ‘cause I use a splash pad all the time and I’ll be very sad ‘cause it’s my favorite splash pad in the city. Through the chair, I’m just wondering, either from staff or the applicant, if they could comment on if any affordable housing discussions have been had and what perhaps they’re planning? I’ll go to staff first on that and if you would like me to go to the applicant, I will.

Through you, Mr. Chair, there is no affordable housing proposed through this. There have been discussions at the staff level when the application was received, but if there’s any update, it might be best from the applicant. I’ll go to the applicant on that question about affordable housing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Specifically in regards to the affordable housing, I think it’s a little more than affordable housing is what we need as a city. In reality, we’re probably not the best operator of the affordable housing aspect of it.

Come with other social issues that need professionals, sort of the deal with some of those ongoing issues. So when it comes to addressing the complex issues of homelessness, mental health and addictions, we believe working collaboratively with experts in the field is the only way really to enact meaningful change. So as you’re aware, Indwell specializes in building affordable housing communities and they provide a complete wraparound support services. I would say Indwell is one of the gold standard service providers here within the city and they’ve utilized the proven model, their best position to support those seeking health, wellness and homeless or a home and belonging ultimately.

We’re proud to have started the process of setting the foundation for a lasting partnership between us and Indwell. And if we receive approval for this project, we will definitely be working with Indwell and we have continued discussions, but we will be putting forth $500,000 towards their current project immediately, not at the time when the buildings are built or the buildings are completed, but at the site plan approval stage. Thank you very much, Councilor. Thank you.

And I just want to say that’s really great to hear. As we know, we have no way of compelling affordable units currently in buildings, which has been very frustrating to many of us. So I’m very glad to hear that this has been considered that an effort is being made to make sure that it’s affordable housing, I also like to hear that it is coming faster than when these will be built, ‘cause given what we’ve been discussing about servicing, it sounds like it might take a little while. So I’d like to thank the applicant for that.

The last question I had was regarding the DCs. So my understanding is for DCs downtown, we waive them as part of our CIP program. And I’m wondering if we are gonna have to be doing significant servicing, I did hear comments from Mr. Levin.

Perhaps they said 350 million, don’t know where that number’s from, so I’m just throwing it out there. But I am wondering who is paying for the DCs if we are not having developers pay the DCs downtown? That’ll go to staff. Through the chair, we do have a CIP program that I don’t have all the details of it right now.

I know that it’s a deferral of the difference between the assessment growth of the current property and the ultimate development. So it’s progressively paid back over a period of years. So we can provide that information at a council if that’s a critical item for you as well. So we don’t have an estimate for that because that’s something that would be completed as part of the site plan as it moves forward.

So we don’t have an estimate of what that might be at this time. Councilor. Thank you, yes, and I appreciate that. I know when I asked about the DCs for, I think it was 320 King Street.

It came back after a couple of weeks, about 13 million. I imagine this would be more because this is a larger project. But I more specifically and perhaps I’ll follow up with staff and maybe bring it to council. I’m interested more in the complete cost for it sounds like significant upgrades that usually are captured in DCs.

But if we don’t charge DCs downtown, I’m wondering who is going to be paying for all of the massive stormwater upgrades we have to do downtown. So that’s more my question, which I think is a little bit different, sorry. So I don’t know if staff will able to answer that. Mr.

Mathers, through the chair. So no one ever does not play the DC. So there’s always a DC paid. It’s just where is the funding coming to be able to support that work.

The DCs are collected and they distributed citywide. So, and if there was a development that were to occur in this location and there was funding that was allocated by council to be able to support these types of works like we do in our CIP programs that pays the DC on behalf of and then funds the construction of any work that’s required to be able to move the servicing forward in that area. So there is always a DC that’s paid and there’s always has to be a combination of that. Councilor.

Thank you. And I think we’re getting so close. I guess my final follow up to that is, so again, my understanding with the DC and the CIPs is someone always pays. And I guess I’m wondering in this case, if we waive DCs, are they then compensated through the DCs throughout the entire city?

So those are mostly paid by developers or is it taxpayers that are paying into the fund then we pull out a reserve fund to cover the cost of the DCs when we reallocate it back to the developer. So I’m just trying to get a better sense of where those are being paid from. I’ll go to staff on that. Through the chair, we can provide that information.

I don’t want to speak out of turn. In general, it’s the difference between it’s paid back, but it’s the difference between if there was no development to happen on the property and then if the development occurs and there’s a payment that’s related to the assessment growth. So it’s the assessment growth that’s paid by that property goes back to pay back the developer of the property. So we can provide some more further information prior to councilor.

Thank you, yes, I’d appreciate that. I’ll probably follow up with some email. So I know it’s complex and lots of different moving parts. So just would love to have that as a whole picture for the discussion and just so people are understanding how much the city is actually investing in making sure that we have intensity and development in our downtown core.

That all being said, I think those exhaust the bulk of my question, oh, one last one, not another one. Regarding the floodplain mapping and the upper towns, I do know that they, and it’s mentioned, they’re doing updated floodplain information. I would have assumed that they have given you a final floodplain line, but I just want to triple check that where the development is occurring is going to be outside of the updated floodplain information received from the upper towns. I’ll go to staff.

Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, the floodplain mapping that was provided by the UTRCA is being recognized through our open space OZET OS4 zone, which basically reflects the flood hazard. That extends to a very small sliver on the northwest corner of the site. It’s currently just part of the pedestrian pathway for the city at Ivy Park.

There’s no development proposed in that area, and the zoning will be reflected to show the new floodplain area. Councilor? Thank you, yes, much appreciated. As we know, with climate change, the storms are getting only worse.

So I’m hoping that if we move forward with this and it’s built, there is no flooding issues at the location, but it sounds like that’s been double checked. So those are the bulk of my questions. I think I’ll be looping back at council with a couple other ones regarding to waiving DCs and CIPs and that kind of thing. But overall, I am supportive of this application.

I’ve been here many times saying that I want intensity and density and downtown is no better place for it. And I appreciate all the effort that the applicant has been doing towards trying to address some of the concerns from the community. I think that for the most part, I’m really happy with the application. I’m happy to hear that the affordable housing is being addressed through a donation to Indwell, but I’ll leave my comments there.

Thank you. I’m going to go to the mayor and then I will be going to council for her. I just want to make a comment on CIP incentives ‘cause I sat on corporate services committee for eight years, I think eight and a half now. My recollection of the CIP program downtown is it used to be a program where the city just outright paid from the tax base into the development charges fund.

So essentially the development charges fund always gets the money because you need to actually pay for the services to supply the sewer, the water, the street upgrades, all the things that DC’s pay for. There was a change we made because the challenge the city had was there was significant draws on the DC fund at any given year. We might have to find 25, $30 million. So we shifted it to a developer front end, the money system where the money comes from the developer up front and then they get paid back over a period of time.

So they still don’t pay DCs, but instead of the city putting money into the DC fund, it’s front ended by the developer and then paid back to them over time as the building completes and potentially new tax revenues come in and we basically create a system where there isn’t as much of a cash flow pressure on the city. So I think that information for Councilor Frank to be very clear on it because I’m not the one who should be answering that question. I just wanted to say very clearly what Mr. Mather said and that’s the DC fund still gets paid.

We’ve changed the program over the years to avoid cash flow issues on the city side. But ultimately, the DC fund still gets paid and that fund has the money it needs. We can debate and I know we’re reviewing all of our DC waiver programs to see what the right path is forward but my understanding is the current program is a developer front end the money. They get a rebate over a number of years so that they do not pay the DCs but they do upfront them so that the DC fund has the money it needs.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Ferro. Thank you and through you I just apologize in advance ‘cause I just came back from the east coast. Nova Scotia’s about a very long day and I got a pounding headache but I’m glad that I was able to make it here. Most of the comments that I was going to make, well not most of them, but some of them have already been made by the delegation so I’m happy about that with respect to water, sewage, storm water, the capacity issues that were asked here at committee.

Also with the traffic and the concerns with the traffic, I can see that that was kind of delved into as well. There was other things that I’d like to bring up about the traffic specifically with Rideout or sorry with King and how all the entrances for the parking garage or at King and that would effectively lead us to just traffic out of Thames, New York and traffic coming off of King and that’s 800 units or 550 parking spots, that’s a lot of traffic so I do have questions about that as well but I’ll just leave that aside. It was asked, we’re looking for the best interest of London right here for this with what we do as Councillors and that’s exactly what I’m always trying to do, what I’m trying to bring to the table and looking at the best interest of London, I can’t help but think of London as now, London is in the future and London is in the past, who’s been here before. I would love to speak to individuals that are no longer with us, past mayors, past Councillors, past controllers and see what they would have to say with this decision because it is very significant.

This is like as was said again and again, the ground zero of London, this is where it all started with the greater of London actually, which I’ve learned today so I understand that we’re in a housing crisis and it’s inevitable, I’ve had this conversation before even while I was running, there’s gonna be a time and it’s happening right now where heritage seems to come at odds with our housing crisis and what do we do when we get to that point is really, is the question and I would like to think that we should still respect our heritage even though we are looking for more housing especially when we’re looking at this type of housing. If you look at the actual breakdown of the units, a lot of them are one units and one plus 10 a lot, the majority and if you were to look at the three bedroom units, there’s only three, three bedroom units in tower one, pant house units as a matter of fact. Tower one, 445 total units, three, three bedroom units and tower two, 355 total units, three, three bedroom units. So I understand that it’s not affordable housing that’s gonna be brought here and London does need more than all types of housing, that’s for sure.

But we, what kind of people will be living in these buildings and that is something that I’m thinking about, who is living there and looking at the bedroom units and the breakdowns, I don’t think this is really gonna take a huge hit at our housing affordability issue or our housing crisis in general. This is a very specific type of demographic that these towers are gonna be catering to. So when we’re talking about such a cherished piece of land and the type of housing that is coming to it, that’s why you’ve seen my comments in the news before today because I’m just not convinced that this is enough to approve this. On top of that, reading through all the reports, staff has noted on multiple points in that report of inconsistencies with the renderings, with the drawings, with the text.

And I have seen it too, going back to the traffic on King. If you look at page 104 image eight, you will see that there is an image on King and it looks like there’s a left turning lane going on the wrong way on right out. So that’s, and if you were to also look at the podium level with the courthouse, the courthouse is supposed to be above the top of the podium and in some images, it’s not. So I heard a comment that this application might be just a little premature, I agree.

I think it is a little premature. I think that we need to review this. And when it comes to development, yeah, we should say yes to good development, but we should also say yes to reasonable development. And I just feel that considering this location, this is not as reasonable as it could be.

So I really think that we should maybe take into consideration asking the applicant to sit down and maybe talking about the possibility of buying half of the land or asking the applicant to have a conversation with, you know, how can we make this more impactful to London? So that’s really what I wanted to point out. I agree with most of the comments that I heard when it comes to the capacity issues. I think that these are things that we need to look at.

Again, in the report, I have seen multiple points in that report where staff did cite that certain issues need to be clarified before the Zoning By-law Amendment, which they haven’t been as of now. So this is why I’m on the side of its premature. And, you know, I guess I’ll keep my comments right there right now, but I really think that we should, we should think about this before we vote on this. It’s not as impactful as it could be, especially when the land is so sacred as this piece of land is.

So just think about the precedent that we set when we vote on this one. Thank you. I’ll go to the mayor. Yes, I answered a question before, and now I’m gonna make some comments on the motion before us.

So I’m gonna support the staff recommendation and I will emphasize, it is a staff recommendation. This is something that staff considered, they’ve added appropriate holding provisions to address a number of the factors. They’ve made comments into the site plan process to consider some adjustments. And ultimately, what they’ve said is, this is a proposal that aligns with our planning processes, the potential policy statements, the type of planning decisions we should make.

You know, sometimes we have matters come before this council and council wants to move forward with a development, and not all of those things are true. And we have to make some different decisions. In this case, this one is staff recommended. Staff recommended, and you’ve heard, you know, Mr.

Fleming speak, and I don’t mean to point him out, but I just, I have respected his opinion over a number of years while he was here at the city. And to hear him talk about the vision, I don’t think in our time on council, we could have contemplated that someone would have wanted to bring 800 units to the downtown right there in the core, you know, walking distance to so much. This is the type of thing that cities of our size are very enviable to have. This type of significant investment in our downtown core at a time when we need more residential units in the core to support businesses, to support vibrancy.

And we’re on the move, we have cranes in the sky. And now we have someone wanting to build what will be the tallest building in the city. And, you know, people can be excited about that or not, but what it is is a planning application to put units in the downtown core. People living there, people walking out of their houses and supporting businesses, people enjoying things like the splash pad and the forks of the Thames and walking over to Prevo and the other parks, seeing a concert in Harris Park.

People in the downtown are very good for the vibrancy of the downtown and the businesses down there. And I know that each and every week, this planning committee, maybe over the other week, has difficult decisions to make before it. Almost every planning application we receive, there’s opposition to it. I think members of the public make very good points.

I think today there’s been some points that Deputy Mayor Lewis mentioned that were perhaps not as productive. But people are allowed to have their opinions, they’re allowed to come and express it. But at the end of the day, when we wear our decisions, we weigh those opinions, we weigh the staff recommendation, we weigh the kind of city that we’re trying to build. And in this case, what we desperately need is units downtown.

And here we have a staff recommended proposal. And so, I don’t contemplate how we would get into a position where we’re gonna send this back or reject it. If we reject it, we’re probably gonna be in an appeal over it with the staff having recommended it. This is something that I think is a good development proposal.

But I’ll also say there are a number of issues around it that aren’t necessarily directly related to it, that I think are really critical issues for us to discuss. How do we continue to create vibrancy at the forks of the temp? How do we, Thames, how do we continue to ensure that the heritage features that we have in our city, like the former courthouse in Middlesex County building, I think the point about how do we make sure that that’s open to the public, that people can continue to enjoy that heritage asset? That’s important.

But that isn’t necessarily linked to a planning and development process. We’re staff bringing a recommendation for it. You can’t just tack those types of things onto this sort of thing. Certainly conversations we can have.

And I think there’s a number of discussions. And that always comes up when we make difficult decisions. There’s always a periphery around it that people want to put in it to try to help make their case. And I understand that.

But at the end of the day, I’m going to support this particular development. I hope that there are other developments like this in our downtown. I hope that there are other high density developments. I hope that this is actually a catalyst for people who want to deploy their capital in our city and help us create units in our downtown.

See this significant investment in our downtown as something that they want to follow. Because we are a city that is getting a lot of attention right now. We have people who want to come here. We have tremendous job creation.

We have the biggest challenge we have is creating enough places for everybody to live. That is a significant challenge in our city. And that means, yes, people who just need a place to live because they can’t afford it. But also people who need wraparound service supports, as you mentioned here today.

We’re trying to do all of those things at once. But it is very difficult for us to say no to a piece of the puzzle that lands before us that a staff recommended that puts density and units in our downtown core. That aligns with everything that we’re trying to do with the downtown from a vibrancy and a residential. And if people want to say, I wish this development was three or four blocks over on a different site, I hope there’s developments on those sites too.

But that’s not what’s before us, as some other Councillor said. So, Mr. Chair, I’m going to support the recommendation here at Planning Committee. I’m going to support it at Council.

I think there’s some questions that Council has had that perhaps can be answered before Council on the way that the incentive programs work. I think those are legitimate things to understand before making a decision. And I appreciate the time today. Thank you.

Any other comments? Councillor Troso. I was, thank you very much. Again, it’s privileged to be here as a guest that I wasn’t going to weigh in tonight.

But I do have to say I had a lot of questions about this project coming in. And I really was persuaded very much by most of the representations that were made by the delegates. I really don’t like the idea of pitting housing density with heritage. And I would be much happier if there could be a better reconciliation between the heritage aspects here, which I think are so important.

And I’ve heard it from so many people. And the need for housing. And I wasn’t really happy with the response about affordable housing because you have different types of affordable housing that could be some percentage of market that don’t involve the need for those additional types of services. I would, if I was a member of this committee, I would be pushing a little harder to have this go back and see if we could negotiate some level of maybe less than market rate housing.

I really would want to think a little bit more about the heritage aspect. So I’m going to be rereading this application very carefully. When I walk in here to the council meeting, I’ll be a full voting member. And I will have quite a bit to say.

And I’m not there yet in terms of being in favor of this. I’m sort of glad I’m not on this committee for that. But I will be at the council meeting. Thank you, thank you very much.

Thank you, councilor. Any other comments, councilor Cottie? Thank you, chair and through you. And thank you for inviting me as a guest today.

When this comes before council, I’ll be supporting it. Thank you, thank you. Any other comments or questions? If the committee will allow me, I thank everyone that came today and for your comments.

As been alluded to by others, as we are in a housing crisis or as some have called it a supply crisis, it is a challenge to be here on this committee because every committee, we hear the same concerns by people that are impacted by where we’re going with infill, higher density. The need for housing is great. The alternative is building over green space and on our farmland. We want to mitigate that as much as possible.

I think we’re supported in the direction we’re going by the province and the federal government. London has changed dramatically in the last eight years. We are now close to 450. We’ll be half a million very shortly.

The resulting supply is not meeting that demand. So we have to build more. So where do we build that? There are some concerns, obviously, about density in the area where downtown.

I guess my point is the extra 25 stories, I guess that would be above the 35 story number that’s been put out there. Well, where’s that gonna go? Is that a 25 story building out of Masonville or Westmount? And I feel strongly about this.

We talk about climate change. We talk about we don’t want to widen roads because that encourages more people to drive. Well, how are people gonna get around transit for sure? Well, what is the best way?

Is it density in the downtown? And I think Mr. Fleming, who has worked on this problem for many years, put forth that when he worked with many of the community in developing the London Plan that identified this actually, it was kind of a prescience in a way to see this coming. I heard concerns when one London place was built.

And at that time, that was a tall tower. And I heard concerns when Budweiser Gardens or John LaBatt Place was built ‘cause that impacted heritage for sure. This will be impactful. I understand that.

But I think I have to just have a different opinion for heritage. I think it will bring the county courthouse which I think is a beauty for heritage. More into public display. I don’t think people appreciate it unless they’re down by the art gallery are coming up Riverside Drive in a downtown.

They don’t appreciate as much as they can. I’ve reviewed the plans that developer has for developing the grounds around that area and down to the waterfront. And I think it will bring many folks that currently don’t enjoy our waterfront and down to that area. As been said here tonight, this is gonna add invigoration to downtown, to continue on and add on to the investment that this city hall has made prior to me and continuing on to have a healthy core.

We are working on issues that we have downtown that we realize that. But I think a big step is having more people who are living, working, and playing downtown. I will be supportive of this staff recommendation. And I thank the committee for allowing me to make my remarks.

So if there’s no other comments or questions, we have a motion moved and seconded, and I will call them vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries for zero. Thank you. I understand, Councilor, that you have needs elsewhere.

In recognition of that, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, yes. We could get through the confidential item if it’s quick. I have about 10 more minutes I could spare before having to go to do a panel.

But if not, then I would ask for a motion to recess or whatever is required. I don’t know if the confidential item is time sensitive. Go to the Mayor. Yes, given the confidential item, I believe is time sensitive.

Could we defer 4.1 and 5.1 to the next PEC meeting and move to the confidential session? Deputy Mayor. Well, through you, Chair, I believe the other option, while it’s not super convenient for anybody’s schedule, is that we could recess this meeting and resume with the remaining two items at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning and conduct the last two items then so that we’re not referring things to another committee cycle.

Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I’d love to make a motion to refer 4.1 and 5.1 to a future PEC meeting. Yeah, a motion to have a seconder for that motion.

Mayor, as I seconded, any discussion then I’ll call the vote. Ms. Westgate powers, I’ll go to you. You understand you want to address the committee?

Thank you through the chair. I just wanted to perhaps offer another alternative for you that may be a little bit more timely. The committee could make a motion to refer the closed session item directly to Council for disposition. If there’s a concern about being able to appropriately deal with that in the time that’s available to you right now, it could just, by motion, while you still have quorum, you could just refer it to Council for disposition.

Thank you for that advice. I’ll go to the mover and the seconder or who moved it, did you move it? Go ahead and so the motion is now changed to moving, referring the confidential matter to Council. That would be in addition, sorry, through the chair.

That would be in addition to your motion that referred those other two items to a future PEC meeting. So that’s, it would be two motions that you’re dealing with. Councillor Fray. Thank you, yes.

I believe that we’ve already dealt with the first one, although I didn’t see the results of the vote, but the second one, I think, would be a separate motion as the clerk was saying, I was just gonna follow up with that. I’ll ask the clerk for determination there. Through the chair, so the first motion is to pose items 4.1 and 5.1 to the October 23rd, Planning and Environment Committee. Once you vote on that, then I can put up the motion to postpone the in-camera matter to the Council meeting.

Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, through you. We have three items here. When we get to the October 23rd PEC meeting, we will have a brand new list of items to deal with.

If we’re gonna refer the confidential to Council, I would suggest that we refer all three items directly to Council for debate there, because I’m not gonna support a deferral until October 23rd on the other two items. The deferred matters list is simply receipt, so it doesn’t need to be referred for 22 days, sorry, 20 days to be received, and the other item, it was on the regular agenda. Folks have had time to consider their points on it, so I would rather that go directly to Council as well. I recognize we have some Councillors missing from the committee tonight, but this was a regularly scheduled meeting, so we should be, when we arrange our schedules, planning to deal with these committee items.

Councilor. Thank you, yes, I think since Emotion is on the floor and has been seconded, I’m not willing to withdraw it, as well, I think we should be doing committee work at committee, and I think 4.1 is committee work, and there’ll be lots of discussion to be had at committee, and 5.1 is gonna show up on every committee agenda, so I’m happy to accept it at every committee that we do, so I’m gonna leave my motion on the floor. Deputy Mayor, can I just get clarification? Are you saying that you would seek a recess and reconvene the committee at a future date?

Are you saying that you would prefer to see these items? Could it just be clear for me over here? Well, through you, Chair, I was offering two options. Either we could refer everything directly to Council.

Seems like Councillor Frank, at least, is not willing to do that. If this motion were to fail, I would refer everything to Council. The other option would be to recess this meeting, not adjourn it, and then resume the meeting at another date and time, as you and I actually flagged earlier in the event that we lost quorum this evening. Okay, so we’ve got a motion moved and seconded, so I’m gonna call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion fails on a tie vote two to two. Okay, Deputy Mayor, would you like to put a new motion on the floor? I will, I will move that all three of the remaining items, 4.15.1 and 6.1, be referred directly to the next Council meeting. You have a seconder for that.

Mayor, are you seconding? Mayor, seconded, the motion. All right, any discussion? I will call that vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries three to one. Looks like we are completed, so can I have a motion to adjourn? Mayor, seconded by Deputy Mayor, all in favor, hand vote. Sorry, Deputy Mayor.

Just before adjournment, I just wanna make sure that because this is a little bit out of our normal process, there was a request for delegation status on 4.1, so that request for delegation will be referred to Council as well. While we normally don’t receive delegates at Council, we have referred an item without dealing with it, so I just wanna make sure that for clarification, the delegation will still be heard at Council. As Chair of Council, I would take advice from the clerks, but I would suspect that Council would need to suspend its procedure by-law in order to entertain that, so that would not be a call that I could make. That would be something that would be on the floor for a Councilor to move in order to be able to receive a delegation at Council because it’s Council’s procedure by-law, not mine.

Okay, we have a motion to adjourn, a hand vote. Thank you. Motion carries.