October 23, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That consent items 2.1 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   Streamline Development Approval Fund Update

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (2.1) Streamline Development Approval Fund Update

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the staff report dated October 23, 2023 entitled “Streamline Development Approval Fund - Update” BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-F11A)

Motion Passed

2.4   Monthly Heritage Report - September, 2023

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (2.5) Monthly Heritage Report - September 2023

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Heritage Monthly report for September, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-R01)

Motion Passed

2.2   Contract Renewal for Management of Environmentally Significant Areas

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (2.3) Contract Renewal for Management of ESAs - Full

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Contract Renewal for the Management of Environmentally Significant Areas;

a)  approval BE GIVEN under Section 14.3 (c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to enter into an Agreement with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority for the management of Environmentally Significant Areas in the City of London as a “Sole Source” contract; and,

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023, to approve an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority for the management of Environmentally Significant Areas in the City of London, substantially in the form attached to the by-law, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement;

it being noted that funding for this service is included within the base budget of Planning and Development. (2023-E20)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That a change in order BE APPROVED to allow consent item 2.3 to be heard before item 2.2.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   Conservation Authority Cost Apportioning Agreements

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (2.4) Conservation Authority Cost Apportioning Agreements - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Conservation Authority Cost Apportioning Agreements:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023, to:

i) APPROVE the three separate Cost Apportioning Agreements between the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority, and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

iii) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amendments to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development. (2023-L04A)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property - 5200 Wellington Road South

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.1) Demolition Request Heritage Listed Property - 5200 Wellington Rd S - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with respect to the demolition request for the building on the heritage listed property at 5200 Wellington Road South:

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

b)    the property at 5200 Wellington Road South BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

c)    the property owner BE ENCOURAGED to implement the conservation strategies identified in Section 8.2 of Appendix C of the staff report dated October 23, 2023; and,

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

i)    commemorate the cultural heritage value for display in the new school, which may include the installation of a heritage plaque or marker in a prominent, visible location on the property;

ii)    salvaged elements should be incorporated to support the future commemoration and interpretation of the site; and,

iii)    the use of a folded plate roof structure in the new school building designed to evoke the style and appearance of the original chapel;

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

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property - 7056 Pack Road

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.2) Demolition Request Heritage Listed Property - 7056 Pack Road - Full

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the demolition request for the building on the heritage listed property at 7056 Pack Road:

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

b)    the property at 7056 Pack Road BE REMOVED from the Register 

of Cultural Heritage Resources;

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

  •    E. Sugden, Bright Past;

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

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.3   1958 Duluth Crescent (OZ-9638 / 39T-23504)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.3) 1958 Duluth Crescent (OZ-9638 39T-2034)

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 Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, relating to the property located at 1958 Duluth Crescent:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

i)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type to permit apartments, mixed-use buildings, community facilities and a maximum height of four storeys;

ii)    ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of The London Plan; and,

iii)    REVISE Map 1 – Place Types – of the Official Plan, The London Plan to redesignate a portion of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (hh-100R1-2) Zone; a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (hh-100R4-5()) Zone; a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (hh-100R5-6()) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5()) Zone; a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (hh-100R5-6()) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-100R6-5()) Zone; a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-100R6-5()) Zone; and a Open Space OS1 Special Provision (OS1(3)) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application approval process relating to the property located at 1958 Duluth Crescent relating to traffic entering onto Clarke Road and community safety concerns with public walkway; and,

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, (File No. 39T-23504), dated June 26, 2023, which shows two (2) single detached dwellings, four (4) multi-family residential blocks, one (1) mixed-use residential block, one (1) park block, and one (1) public pathway block to be served by one (1) public road (extension to Duluth Crescent);

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

  •    Stephen Janssen, London Christian School;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to general intent and purpose of The London Plan, including, but not limited to Our Strategy, Our City, City Building Policies, Neighbourhoods Pace Type and Criteria for Specific Policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendments facilitate the development of an underutilized site with an appropriate range of uses at an appropriate scale and intensity;

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-D08)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.4   3317 White Oak Road (Z-9645)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.4) 3317 White Oak Road (Z-9645)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 3317 White Oak Road Inc., (c/o MHBC), relating to the property located at 3317 White Oak Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial (h-18*h-()h-212h-()*LI6/LI7/LI10)) Zone;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the future development of an underutilized site within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of industrial uses;

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-D08)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.5   764, 772, and 774 Crumlin Sideroad (OZ-9642)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.5) 764, 772 and 774 Crumlin Sideroad (OZ-9624)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by New London Group Ltd., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the properties located at 764, 772 and 774 Crumlin Sideroad:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by REVISING the policy for Crumlin / Gore Road in the Specific Policies for the Rural Neighbourhoods Place Type and by REMOVING the subject lands from Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan; and,

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-17) Zone, an Open Space (OS4) Zone, an Agricultural (AG1) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone TO a holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-183*R1-14(_)) Zone, an Open Space (OS4) Zone, an Agricultural (AG1) Zone and an Environmental Review (ER) Zone;

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

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Key Directions and Rural Neighbourhoods, Open Space and Farmland Policies;

  •    the recommended amendment will facilitate the future severance of the subject lands into multiple residential lots;

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the character of the existing rural neighbourhood area and will not negatively impact surrounding properties; and,

  •    the proposed uses are compatible with the adjacent land uses and considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses;

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 (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.6   1901 Jalna Boulevard (Z-9633)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.6) 1901 Jalna Boulevard (Z-9633)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Kindred Works, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1901 Jalna Boulevard:

a)    the proposed, revised, attached by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 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 Neighbourhood Facility (NF) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

b)    the requested Special Provisions, as part of the amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, notwithstanding Section 4.19.4) b) parking may be permitted in the south exterior yard along Jalna Boulevard and to permit a maximum driveway width of 4.6 metres whereas 3.0 metres is required, BE APPROVED;

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

i)    the apartment building be designed to address its corner location through massing, architectural details, and location of entrances, and to accommodate opportunities for mixed-use on the ground floor;

ii)    additional visual screening be provided for any surface parking exposed to the public street(s) and rooftop mechanical penthouses and equipment;

iii)    the short-term bicycle parking stalls along Southdale Road East be relocated to be fully on private property;

iv)    to improve the accessibility of the lay-by, access should be shifted and/or expanded;

v)    should driveways be provided for the street townhouses, they should be 3.0 metres with any adjacent walkways being a different material use to delineate the spaces, and that the walkway is not to be used for parking; and,

d)    that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes related to the calculation of parking requirements is minor in nature and will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Public Meeting;

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

  •    a communication dated October 19, 2023, from L. Jamieson and H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

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

  •    C. Forrester, Kindred Works; and,

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

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

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

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

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

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to include part d), which reads as follows:

“d)    that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes related to the calculation of parking requirements is minor in nature and will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Public Meeting;”

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion BE APPROVED, as amended.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.7   610-620 Beaverbrook Avenue (OZ-9517)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.7) 610-620 Beaverbrook Avenue (OZ-9517)

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 Old Oak Properties, relating to the property located at 610-620 Beaverbrook Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to ADD a new Specific  Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type to permit two, five (5) storey apartment buildings and to ADD 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 23, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan and the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR1)) Zone and a Holding Residential R5 (h*R5-7) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_) Zone;

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

i)    provide a building step down to 4-storeys to the north to provide appropriate height transition from abutting low-rise residential buildings;

ii)    screen the parking structure with the building facing Beaverbrook Avenue, and ensure that parts of the structure visible from the street are adequately screened with enhanced all-seasoned landscaping;

iii)    relocate the garbage loading/pick-up area away from the view from the public realm;

iv)    ensure there is a safe pedestrian connection from the city sidewalk to the north entrance of the east building for pedestrians leaving and arriving to the north;

v)    consider common outdoor amenity spaces (e.g., sit-out areas, rooftops gardens etc.) on the 5th floor terraces;

vi)    update the tree preservation plan, and/or provide adequate soil volumes for required perimeter plantings;

vii)    consider reducing the number of parking spaces on site and provide for increased landscaped open space;

viii)    ensure sidewalk widths are a minimum of 1.5m and increased to 2.1 metres wherever parking abuts a sidewalk;

ix)    ensure barrier-free stalls are located closer to the main buildings entrances and/or extend the access aisle crossings;

x)    consider relocating the move-in loading room closer to the loading area to avoid moving trucks parking within the main drive-aisle;

xi)    provide glass railings that are bird friendly;

xii)    ensure there is a minimum setback of 2.5m from parking to habitable space and provide landscaping or built elements to mitigate headlight glare; 

xiii)    provide a delineation between ground floor patios and the public realm and include lockable front doors for ground level units to encourage street activation;

xiv)    ensure that the proposed parking structure is designed in a way that balances privacy, safety and headlight mitigation (e.g. lattice fence, brise-soleil structure, perennial plants, hardscaping etc.); 

xv)    ensure Low Impact Development measures are incorporated to minimize any drainage impacts;

xvi)    additional tree plantings on the property or nearby properties will be required to compensate for loss of trees and exceed the minimum tree planting requirements; and,

xvii)    investigate a solar installation along top of the parking garage and include a minimum of 5% EV charging stations in parking.

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

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

  •    A. Senzikas;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies, the Zoning to the Upper Maximum policies, and the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications policies;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of development;

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

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to amend clause b) as follows:

“the proposed by-law appended to the staff report as Appendix ‘B’, being a by-law to amendment Zoning Bylaw Z.-1, BE REVISED by DELETING part 2) a) v) Landscaped Open Space (minimum): 24%, it being noted the Landscaped Open Space (minimum) in the R8-4 Zone is 30%;

it being further noted, that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes related to the Landscaped Open Space (minimum) is minor in nature and will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Public Meeting;”

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to amend clause c) by adding the following:

“xvi)    additional tree plantings on the property or nearby properties will be required to compensate for loss of trees and exceed the minimum tree planting requirements; and,

xvii)    investigate a solar installation along top of the parking garage and include a minimum of 5% EV charging stations in parking;”

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.8   135 Villagewalk Boulevard (Z-9644)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.8) 135 Villagewalk Boulevard (Z-9644)

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 2560334 Ontario Limited, (c/o York Developments), relating to the property located at 135 Villagewalk Boulevard:

a)    the proposed, revised by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 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 Business District Commercial Special Provision (h-5h-99BDC(25)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(25)) Zone;

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

i)    locate principal buildings entrance(s) for residential lobbies and commercial units along Villagewalk Boulevard, Richmond Street, and Sunningdale Road West;

ii)    incorporate commercial and live-work units at the gateway intersection of Royal Oaks Bend and Villagewalk Boulevard;

iii)    incorporate step-backs or other architectural articulation to define a human scale base for any high-rise development along Villagewalk Boulevard and adjacent to the east-west and north-south “spines”;

iv)    provide a taller ground floor height for high-rise development to accommodate commercial uses and maximize visual connections;

v)    ensure a maximum tower floor plate size of 1,000m2 for each high-rise development above the eighth storey;

vi)    provide a large proportion of transparent glazing at-grade along street-facing elevation(s);

vii)    minimize and screen blank walls on any structured parking;

viii)    consider an enhanced pedestrian and cyclist streetscape along the north-south and east-west “spines” of the proposed development. Include amenities such as benches, planters, enhanced all-season landscaping and tree planting, temporary bicycle parking, canopies, signage, human-scale lighting, public art, etc.;

ix)    ensure the heights of any proposed retaining walls do not cause sightline or safety issues and ensure that adequate lighting is provided;

x)    reduce the amount of parking between the buildings and Sunningdale Road West and incorporate more patios and landscape areas;

xi)    reduce the number of parking stalls on site and provide for increased landscaped open space;

xii)    ensure sidewalks are a minimum of 1.5 metres and increased to 2.1 metres wherever parking abuts a sidewalk; and,

xiii)    ensure engineering drawings are updated as part of the site plan review;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC; and,

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, the Shopping Area Place Type policies, the Main Street Place Type policies, The Sunningdale North Area Plan and the Evaluation Criteria for Planning and Development Applications policies; and,

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D09)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.9   30 and 100 Villagewalk Boulevard (SPA22-049 / SPA21-119)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.9) 30 and 100 Villagewalk Boulevard (SPA22-049 SPA21-119)

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 Cridon Investments Inc. relating to the property located at 30 & 100 Villagewalk Boulevard;

a)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the applications for Site Plan Approval to permit three total apartment buildings; and,

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports the Site Plan Application;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo; and,

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 (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.10   1407 and 1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (3.10) 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road (OZ-9438)

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 2134325 Ontario Inc., (York Developments), relating to the property located at 1407-1427 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 23, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 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 Business District Commercial Special Provision (h*BDC2(4)) Zone and a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC2(3)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC2(_)) Zone;

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

i)    ensure the townhouses function separately from the commercial development, with adequate landscape buffering and separate entrances and parking facilities for each use;

ii)    provide an adequately sized and functional amenity space for the residential units;

iii)    the proposed east-west pedestrian connection, in the general location shown on the plans submitted with the Zoning By-law Amendment application, be maintained with enhanced landscaping;

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

v)    an alternative location for site access from Hyde Park Road be considered;

vi)    bicycle parking for the townhouse component of the development be considered; and,

vii)    all outstanding matters with respect to the proposed watercourse enclosure be resolved with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), and a Section 28 approval be obtained; and,

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the changes in height and density are minor in nature and will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Public Meeting;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning; and,

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan and the Hyde Park Community Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment is in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site with an appropriate range of uses at an appropriate scale and intensity;

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-D08)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   ReThink Zoning - Progress Update

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (2.2) ReThink Zoning Progress Update

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the staff report dated October 23, 2023 entitled “ReThink Zoning - Progress Update” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the following communications and heard verbal presentations with respect to this matter from the following:

  •    A. Johnson, Greenspace Alliance, communication dated September 25, 2023 and the attached map; and,

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute.  (2023-D14)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve delegation status to A. Johnson, Greenspace Alliance and M. Wallace, London Development Institute, with respect to ReThink Zoning.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   11th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

2023-10-23 Staff Report - (2.6) 11th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on October 11, 2023:

a)    an expenditure from the 2023 Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) Budget BE APPROVED for security services and refreshments at the Stewardship Sub-Committee meeting, hosting the Western University Public History Program presentations; it being noted that the CACP has sufficient funds in its 2023 budget to cover this expense; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-C08)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That clause a) of the 11th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE RECEIVED; it being noted that clause a) reads as follows:

“a)    the Planning and Environment Committee BE ADVISED that the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) made the following comments with respect to the Notice of Planning Application, dated September 18, 2023, from L. Mottram, Senior Planner, related to a Draft Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 1944 Bradley Avenue:

i)    there is a lack of commercial uses and range and mix of land uses to support a complete community in the area and the development appears to be an example of urban sprawl; and,

ii)    the CACP supports the findings and research of the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated August 17, 2023, as appended to the Agenda;”

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on October 11, 2023:

b) (5.3) an expenditure from the 2023 Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) Budget BE APPROVED for security services and refreshments at the Stewardship Sub-Committee meeting, hosting the Western University Public History Program presentations; it being noted that the CACP has sufficient funds in its 2023 budget to cover this expense; and,

c) clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2023-C08)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Deferred Matters List

2023-10-23 - (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:26 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 37 minutes)

Okay, folks, it’s just past four o’clock, so I’d like to call the 17th meeting of the Planning Environment Committee to order. 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 Anishinaabek, Paudenosaunee, Lenapeiwaq, and Adawaduram.

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

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact pack@london.ca, that’s P-E-C at London.ca, or 519-661-2489 extension, 2425. I’ll now ask for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I will move on to the consent items. Are there any consent items that committee members would like to be pulled?

Deputy Mayor Los. Thank you, Chair, and through you. Item 2.2 and 2.3 are both in regard to arrangements with the conservation authorities. I’d like those bolded and dealt with separately with apologies to any staff who are here to answer questions on those, ‘cause I know that’ll put them to the end, but I have some questions about those that I need to deal with separately.

Okay, are there any others that many members like to be pulled separate? That’s our friend. Thank you, I’m just wondering, Deputy Mayor Los just mentioning questions about them. Don’t we, I just want to confirm unless there’s gonna be motions made with questions.

Don’t we typically keep them in the consent item area? That’s, you’re allowed to ask questions, but you might not want to vote as a package. So, five, I’m correct, Deputy Mayor, that’s your intent. Councillor Hopkins.

And just for further clarification, as I know there’s people here, do the items that are pulled from the consent items brought to the end of the agenda, just as I heads up to members that are in the public for their information. That’s correct, Councillor Hopkins, they’ll be after number five deferred matters. So, can I have a motion on consent items 2.1 and 2.4? Deputy Mayor Lewis moves.

Councillor Hopkins, second. Now, is it time for any questions? Councillor Hopkins? Yes, Mr.

Chair, just for you on 2.4, the monthly heritage report for September. I know this is the first time I’ve seen it. I just want to give my thanks to staff for the information. It’s very informative.

It lets us know the number of applications that have been worked on and also the timelines being addressed as well. So, my thanks to staff. Any other questions or comments before I call the vote? We have a motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Just want to ask that those in the gallery, we’re hearing a bit of an echo down here. So, if you can turn down the volume, if you have the feed on, that’d be appreciated. We’re going on to schedule items.

First one, 3.1, regarding 5,200 Wellington Road South, a demolition request for a motion to open the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, any technical questions for staff at this time?

Then moving on, the applicant would like to address the committee, seeing not, so that I’ll open the floor to those in the public that might want to address the committee. ‘Cause I end up in the gallery, just make your way to the microphone, ask Clerk if there’s anyone online or in the auxiliary rooms. Okay, seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, and I’ll go to the committee now for motions, questions, comments. Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’m happy to move the staff’s recommendation.

And can I have a seconder? Councillor Hopkins, any comments or questions before I call the vote? Seeing none, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, moving on to 3.2, 7056, Pack Road, a demolition request, look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, call the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Any questions from the committee for staff to have a technical nature? Seeing none, I’ll look at the applicant who wants to address the committee, or can make sure anyone online. Okay, the applicant is online and would address the committee now as your guests. Good afternoon, through you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you for having me. I actually do not have any delegation to present with respect to 7056, Pack Road, the agenda in 3.2. I was simply available to be here.

Should there be any questions? And it appears that I’m not required, so thank you. Okay, thank you. Move on to the public.

If there’s anyone in the gallery that would like to address committee, I’ll check with the clerk if there’s anyone online. Is there any members of the public wishing to speak to item 3.2? Thank you. Okay, appears that we have no one wishing to address the committee, so I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM, Councillor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put 3.2 on the floor for committee members, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I’d like to move the motion to request the demolition of the building.

I just want to make a comment. I’m going to miss purchasing the best meets in town from this location that are supportive of the recommendation. And I get a seconder for the motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll go to you, Councillor Hopkins, do you wish to speak to it?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I just made a comment about purchasing the best meets in town from this location, and we’ll miss doing that. Okay, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, given we have a representative from the applicant online.

I was curious, I noticed that this is outside the urban growth boundaries, so I’m curious if there are any plans that are coming forward after this demolition request? I’ll go to the applicant. Thank you, through you, Chair. No in discussions with the property owners, they simply are having a difficult time maintaining the building, and they have no plans at this moment in time.

I would like to make a point of clarity on the comment received from the other committee member, and that the Pack Road meets is actually our, is the neighboring property, 70, 56 Pack Road. Councillor Frank. Thank you for that clarification. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

We have motion moved and seconded, I will call the vote. Supposing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, before I open the PPM, I’m gonna go to staff for a brief presentation on 3.3, which is 1958 Duluth Crescent. Through the chair, so this is a very exciting opportunity for the city.

This is a project where the land was purchased through a new sale to the school board, and through a municipal housing development group. They have now brought Ford and this application to be able to rezone it for housing and affordable housing moving forward. So this is an example of what, where we can add a lot of value to the process, when we can access properties that the general marketplace cannot, and if we can get through and do all the really great planning work to be able to bring something forward, this is a great opportunity for us to be able to have something that’s going to be a really big game changer as far as this area and for allowing for affordable housing. So a very exciting project and just wanted to highlight and thank our team for all the great work on it.

Thank you. I look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, and I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Any questions of the technical nature for staff? Seeing none, I’ll go to the close members of the public if there’s anyone that would like to address a committee on this particular item. So clerk, if there’s anyone online.

Mr. Janssen, I see that you’re online. If you’d like to speak to this, you have five minutes. Please give us your name and go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this. I am linking in this afternoon from my office. I am the London Christian Elementary School of Principal on Clark Road.

So part of this area backs on to a fence line that we share with this area. I’ve had some advance contact with some of the folks onto this, certainly applaud the desire to create accessible housing. Just had some questions about understanding how this affects our reality. Somebody in this East London neighborhood.

I don’t know who would answer this question, but I am curious to understand how vehicle traffic will be managed. My understanding is that there is a ratio assumed of one to two vehicles, sorry, a ratio of one vehicle to two units or two to two dwellings. We have some concerns in a community about safety where this traffic will exit onto Clark Road and how that affects what we’ve noticed as becoming a hazardous traffic on Clark Road. The second matter has to do with the safety of the walkway that’s proposed to extend from the Luth Crescent to match up with an existing walkway.

It’s been our experience that as people in this area, safety in terms of people moving East West through that neighborhood out to Clark Road, often through our property and how we can work to make sure that’s managed well. And unfortunately, we are seeing evidence in this area of substance abuse, people experiencing homelessness and property damage. So I’m eager to see how we can make that happen. Thanks for the chance to ask a question.

Thank you, Mr. Jensen. After we finish the public participation meeting, I will ask those questions of staff. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee?

Seeing none, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, and I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

So we’ll go to staff on the questions raised during our public participation meeting. The first one is regarding traffic management, specifically the accident on the Clark safety concerns there, and the second with the respect to walkway safety with the loot to the existing pathway, existing concerns, and how will that be, I guess, addressed with this proposed development. Thank you, through you, the chair, my name’s Michael Clark, I’m a planner in subdivision planning. For the, in terms of the traffic out to Clark Road, the majority, the traffic study completed as part of this application, the majority of traffic will be using, is anticipated to be using the Advil Drive and Trafalgar Road exit from here.

Due to the design of the Duluth Crescent, it’s not conducive to a lot of through traffic since it’s exacts back and forth. And the traffic consultants and our staff have agreed that they don’t participate in any significant traffic impacts at the Duluth and Clark intersection. Regarding the pathway safety, the new, so the new portion of the pathway within the subdivision will be much wider than the existing pathway up to city standards, like current city standards. Staff, a lot of these details will be determined later once the subdivisions registered and developed, but the new city standards would have lighting and other landscaping to ensure that safety is maintained and access to the rear school yard would be controlled through a fence, most likely, in other landscaping.

And so it’s hoped that with more people living in the area and fronting on to that area, there’ll be more eyes on the street and more hopefully a reduction in some of the negative impacts that the speaker mentioned. Thank you. I’ll put the, I’ll put item 3.3 on the floor now for committee members, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair.

I’m gonna move the staff recommendation and then once we have a seconder, I’d like an opportunity to speak to it, please. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Frank seconds, I’ll go back. Thank you.

And so first of all, I wanna thank everybody, our consultants, our staff, Mr. Clark, who’s been great at getting back to residents who have emailed in with questions, everybody on the team who’s been a part of this. This is an exciting redevelopment of a former school property. And one of the first of what I hope is going to be several great infill projects that are in the various stages of process in order to, we have a pretty built out neighborhood.

So when these properties do become available, it’s great to take advantage of the chance to provide some residential density in infill here. I do wanna take an opportunity to address a little bit in terms of the community safety, ‘cause I’ve heard this too and, you know, unfortunately the worst thing for community safety is a piece of vacant land with no real frontage anywhere in terms of main streets that has been left unattended for a while. It used to be a site that was very vibrant with school activity, but we’ve had certainly, and I acknowledge there’s been, you know, a couple of encampment issues there. There have been some other challenges, you know, just in the neighborhood last weekend, unfortunately, I was made aware of an incident where 45 individual residences had tires slashed, but I think it’s important to note that in that case, these were youth who lived in the neighborhood.

This was not the result of a homeless encampment or anything like that. Unfortunately, this was the result of bad behavior of some young people in the neighborhood. And while it’s never comforting to hear that, the reality is that unfortunately, those behaviors do happen from time to time. And thankfully, there were some front door security cameras that were able to provide some images, some descriptions that were able to be provided to the police.

So I absolutely agree with what Mr. Clark was saying. The more we have people actually living there, the more that there are the quote unquote eyes on the street, the safer a neighborhood becomes. I have heard a few traffic concerns as well, and again, I wanna underscore what was said by our staff.

The design of this road is deliberately meant to deter speeding and cut through traffic, both Duluth Crescent as it exists now, and when the extension is put through with the S curve in it, will require quite a bit of maneuvering by traffic to use it as a cut through. And what we will see with this residential infill is actually pretty close to both the same amount of traffic impact as we saw when the elementary school was functional, given the amount of drop offs and pickups we were having there on a regular basis. So the good news is that when you’re talking about residential infill, that traffic is spread throughout the course of the day. It’s not concentrated in pickup and drop off times.

So the traffic impact study that we have does anticipate, given the location of the buildings on this site, that most of them will exit out onto Admiral Drive. We will have to, I know residents have asked about things like controlling access at Admiral Drive, whether that becomes an all-way stop or what measures have to be implemented there, will be things that we work on through site plan as this application moves forward. I also want to, we have some three story walkups. The tallest buildings envisioned here are four stories, one of which includes some community facility space, which I’m really still keeping my fingers crossed ends up being a new library branch, but that’s a hope for another day.

And we’re retaining some park space here. So we are not only fitting all these things in, but we’ve actually increased the setbacks beyond the minimums required to separate the density away from the existing single family dwellings, both on Crystal and on Garland Crescent. So they’re really trying to be respectful of the privacy concerns. We will be looking at, as this moves forward, proper landscaping, whether fencing is required or not, in terms of privacy, whether board-on-board privacy fencing is needed, but to see this sort of mixed development come along, and I gotta say, there’s been a lot of community input on this.

There have been three different public meetings that I’m aware of, two hosted by our staff, one that was hosted by the Community Association just as a chance for people to have some input. There’s been lots of correspondence back and forth, both with our staff, as well as with myself. And so I recognize that this is a change for the neighborhood. Excuse me, and it will take a little bit of adjustment to get through, but at the end of the day, I think this is a really, really positive development moving forward.

It’s gonna create a mix of housing opportunities from a couple of freehold single family dwellings to some townhouses, two story apartments, four story apartments. So it’s a real mix for a mix of populations to go there. I know we still have work to do in terms of who are our partners on this may be moving forward. Just like I said with the library, I’m gonna say my fingers are still crossed that we have a partner who brings forward a 55 plus building at this location, ‘cause there’s certainly some need for seniors housing in this area, but it’s very much an exciting project.

And it is a walk to school sort of area. So families will be able to move here and be able to walk to Lord Nelson Public School or be able to walk to Holy Family Catholic School, which I can say right now, the metal posts are in the ground on Trafalgar. We don’t have the lights hung yet, but a pedestrian crossover on Trafalgar to provide good, safe pedestrian access to the Catholic school is already approved and under construction. So there’s lots of good that are, that is coming as a result of this development.

And I just, you know, I’m really excited to see it come to fruition here. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Those are options.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments about this development. I think Ditto to everything that you’ve said.

It’s quite an exciting project. And this is where residential info should happen in these neighborhoods. I know there’s challenges, but I really want to underline the importance of affordable housing here and obviously the parks, but also when we talk about affordable housing, the importance, and you mentioned 55 and over, aging in place. This is a great opportunity.

Not sure what the partners are going to look like, but going forward that there were comments from the public, the importance of aging in place. And I can just see this is a great development for that to happen. So very supportive. Thank you.

Councillor Frank. I just wanted to say yay and thanks. Officially noted. Any other comments from committee members who are visiting Councillors?

Okay, I’ll just, yeah, an echo what we’ve heard. 24 units, affordable housing, great fresh ideas on repurposing land. And hopefully again, sets the template a bit for other opportunities that might come before us. And what I do like about it, it’s mix.

I love the mix, it’s not homogenous, it’s not one look. It’s, I think it’ll be very interesting for the neighborhood and interesting for the folks that live there. So my thanks to staff on this plan. We have a motion moved and seconded.

So I will call the vote. Motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Moving on to 3.4 regarding 3317 White Oak Road.

I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank. I’ll call the vote. Motion carries five to zero.

Questions of a technical nature for staff at this time. I’ll look to the applicant if the applicant would like to address committee. Please sir, give us your name in five minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Scott Allen, MHBC, acting on behalf of the applicant. And with me remotely from the ownership group is David Singh as well. At this time, we’d just like to express our support for the findings and recommendations of the staff report. We also wanted to indicate that we’ve reviewed the recommended holding provisions, our agreement with those provisions to help guide site development going forward.

And finally, we’d like to thank staff for their assistance with this application. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Glad to answer any questions.

Thank you. I’ll look to the public now if they would like to address the committee. I don’t see anyone at the mics and chambers. I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online.

We have no one online and I don’t see anyone here. So I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councillor Hopkins, motions seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call the vote. Folding the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. I will now put 3.4 on the floor for our committee, looking for a motion or a discussion. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’m happy to move the motion.

I have a seconder, please. Deputy Mayor Lewis, motion moved and seconded. Any comments? I see Councillor Palose or Councillor Palose, I’m gonna go to you after Councillor Hopkins.

Please go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And happy to support a development on an underutilized site.

I do have a question through you to staff about the Bradley extension. I notice it’s just below that and just curious to know, given that there are a number of holding provisions how this development is gonna go forward with that extension. Is it going to align or do we know when the Bradley extension is gonna start to happen? I’ll go to staff on regarding the Bradley extension in this development.

Through the Chair, the direction for this current proposal is kind of just a concept plan. We’re not sure what the actual development is gonna look like in the future, but as of now, the access is going to be from White Oak Road. And then through the site plan stage, potentially when this does come to an application, there could be some frontages and some buildings along that future Bradley extension, Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that.

So we’re really not sure when that extension is gonna take place. So if I can just go to staff again just to confirm. Do we have a timing in mind? Yeah, through the Chair, thanks for the question, the opportunity.

I do believe right now transportation is currently working through the design. Our GMIS growth project timing shows 2023. So I envision we are either tendering it this year or getting ready to tender next year for construction potentially in 2024. Councillor.

Yeah, thank you for that. I thought it was coming soon and good to see the Bradley extension start to open up. So thank you. Thank you.

I’m gonna go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me at your committee. Also the word Councillor for this area.

So supportive of the change in designation of what the zones are and appreciate staff putting the holding provisions in, looking forward to see what the applicants will propose for this area. Happy to work with them behind the scenes if they care to connect. Personally, I prefer, as we said, nothing’s decided yet, but staff is correct that the construction will start in 2024 for the Bradley extension. It will also include cycling infrastructure.

Mindful as we build out these extensions to help also alleviate traffic that it remains a road and not a strode and that where possible we can protect our cycling infrastructure and have minimal impacts with the cycling lanes that we are putting on it. Happy to see the info as we do have leapfrog development in this area and we’ll be supporting this at council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Any other comments or questions from committee members or visiting Councillors? We have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll call the vote. I’ll send the vote, the motion passes.

Moving on to 3.5 regarding 764, 772 and 774, Crumblin’s side road. I’ll look for motion to open the PPM. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the motion, or vote. I’ll send the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Any technical questions for staff at this time and I’ll look to the applicant. If the applicant would like to address the committee, please ma’am, you have five minutes. If you could give us your name, that’d be great.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair, my name is Caitlin Crowley, planner with Silenka Priemmo. I am here as the authorized agent for these applications.

I would first like to thank Brent House and additional city staff reviewers for their work on this application. I have read the staff report and agree with staff’s recommendation for both the official plan and zoning amendment. This proposal for OPA and ZBA are to support a future consent application on the property for approximately 13 future lots. We understand that city staff are not supportive of lots under 0.4 hectares in size.

However, are willing to contemplate this through a future hydrogeological study to confirm that the number of lots can be accommodated. We agree with the holding provision that has been placed on the property and are happy to work with staff on this future study at the consent stage. And working through this application with the city of London and UTRCA staff, we also believe that all buffers and the land subject to easement, which are proposed to be OS4 for protection of the municipal drain on this property have been appropriately provided. Should we be successful this evening and further at council, we look forward to working with staff and providing additional studies on the property to support approximately 13 lots and 13 future homes in this area of London.

Thank you for your time this evening and I will be here to answer any technical questions. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Crowley.

Go to the public now. If anyone would like to address committee, I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Is there anyone wishing to speak to item 3.5? Okay, seeing that there’s no one that would like to address us, and I will look for a motion to close the PPM, Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, and I will call that vote.

Seeing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you, I’ll now put 3.5 on the floor for committee, looking for a motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hopkins, any questions, discussion, Councilor Frank. Thank you, and through you to staff, I’m just wondering, noticing that the industrial land is just directly opposite to it, I’m just wondering if there’s any mitigation requirements just for noise or sound, or if those have already been considered, given that these will be all turned into residential units.

I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, there was a minor study done, or a D-26 study, sorry, that was completed, and we’ll be looked at at the consent stage for when the actual lots are created to see where the housing can be placed, and future building permit stage as well. Councilor Frank. Thank you, that’s all.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and it’s rare that I get to see at the same meeting twice another development in Ward 2 that’s bringing forward some new housing. And certainly, well, I know we don’t typically contemplate the smaller lot sizes, I think it’s appropriate here. And I think moving forward, just in terms of our re-thing process altogether, given the realities of the housing situation and the cost of land these days, we may need to consider this on a more regular basis.

But again, had a lot of community engagement, had a lovely front yard gathering with about 20 residents on a number of issues on Crumlin Road, back about eight weeks ago, this application was one of those things that they wanted to talk about, and generally supportive of having more neighbors in the area. I mean, their big request was, can we straighten out the intersection while we’re at it? That’s unfortunately not something that we consider with regard to this particular application. And so their other concern was, can we look at traffic calming or other measures?

And I said, well, first we need to get the housing built. And then we’ll see what the traffic impacts are like. But when we’re talking about this number of homes, it won’t significantly alter the volume of traffic on the road. But in general, supportive of having new neighbors.

And so I think that these will be desirable homes and gets a good project and happy to be supportive of it. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Any other comments or questions? Motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Opposing the vote and the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you. Moving to 3.6 regarding 1901, John the Boulevard. I’ll look for motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Any questions of a technical nature for staff at this time? Seeing none, I’ll move on to looking to the applicant.

If the applicant would like to address the meeting, please, ma’am, if you could give us your name and you have five minutes. Is this, yep. Hi there. My name is Carly Forrester.

I’m a senior planner with Kindred Works, who is the developer on this file. I also have Laura Jamison here from Zilinka, instrumental as well, who will be speaking about the application. I just wanted to provide a brief intro to Kindred Works as we’re new to the London market. But we’re a developer that’s working with nonprofits, particularly the United Church in this case, to redevelop and reimagine some of the lands owned by not-for-profits and trying to keep those not-for-profit lands continuing to thrive and be available for the community.

So on this particular property, we’ve partnered with the White Oaks United Church to reimagine some of their property and deliver some much-needed housing, but also some below-market housing as well on the site, while keeping some of the community space thriving and available to continue in that area into perpetuity. So on this development, which will go into a little bit more detail, I don’t want to be redundant, but we’re proposing 110 units. One third of those are to be available at a below-market rate. We’re happy to work with staff and council as we go through that to define what that means.

We are working with CMHC on this development to fund it, so rest assured there will be below-market rate housing unavailable. The other two thirds would be available at a market rate rental rate. All of our developments are 100% rental as well. We have a fairly high sustainability level, so we’ll be seeking passive house standards and net zero housing standards on this property.

So all the new development will have a very sustainable built form in terms of less glazing, less built area, but less openings as well that leads to air getting out and increasing the cost to heat and clear home. But also looking to add solar panels when it’s possible on the site on the roof of the new building as well. So that would be helping to reduce our carbon impact, but I just wanted to be available here as I said, kinder works is new to the London area, so I didn’t want to be anonymous. So I just came for, just to introduce ourselves and answer any questions, but again, leave it to the experts to provide the technical details.

Thank you, Ms. Forester. - Thank you. I’ll go to the public now for any balance or questions to committee members.

Please, ma’am, if you could give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Laura Jamison.

I’m a planner with Celine Capriamo here on behalf of Kindred Works, the applicant. We are here today to discuss a proposed zoning bylaw amendment for the land’s known as 1901 John the Boulevard to permit a six-story apartment building with 100 units and 10 two-story townhouse units as well. We would like to thank staff for their work on this project to date. We’ve reviewed staff’s report and appreciate the recommendation for approval.

However, we respectfully disagree with staff’s recommendation for refusal of the site-specific requests for the exterior side yard parking and increased driveway widths. A letter was submitted to the clerk ahead of today’s meeting outlining our position and our opinion of these specific requests. We are seeking a site-specific provision to permit parking in an exterior side yard. The subject lands are unique in that the site is bounded on three sides by public rights of way.

In an effort to provide a transition and built form from the apartment building to the existing neighborhood to the south and to match the conditions of the existing neighborhood to the south, single-lane driveways fronting John the Boulevard are proposed. If the proposed driveways to the townhouse units led to garages, city staff would be supportive of the request. However, in an effort to maintain affordability, garages are not proposed. Maximizing interior living space for the townhouse units is preferred to dedicating interior space for parking, which may or may not be efficiently utilized.

We are also requesting a provision to increase the maximum driveway width. City staff interpret the proposed three meter driveway and adjacent 1.6 meter walkway as being the total driveway width. The proposed walkway provides a direct connection from the townhouse front door to the public sidewalk, thereby promoting active transportation and activates the street as well. City staff have provided an alternative bylaw without these requests.

However, it would be extremely challenging to accommodate parking for the townhouse units elsewhere on the site, where parking for the apartment building and the proposed accessory community center space would not be impacted. The requested site site specific provisions to permit exterior side yard parking and increased driveway widths will provide private parking spaces for the street townhouse units, which fit within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Ultimately, we are seeking relief from technical provisions in the zoning bylaw that have a large impact on the delivery of this affordable housing development as proposed. I’m here to answer any additional questions that the committee members may have.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to address the committee? I’ll look to the clerk to see if there’s anyone online.

Is there anyone further online that would like to speak to this matter? Okay. Looks like we have exhausted the speaker’s list, so I will look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Hopkins seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you. So I’m gonna put 3.6 on the floor now.

I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I’m not moving the staff recommendation. I will move the staff recommendation with a change where clause B related to the requested special provisions of the zoning amendment bylaw be approved rather than refused.

And I’m gonna say right out of the gate. Most of us who have single family homes have exterior side yard driveways. We have an applicant who’s seeking to provide affordable housing. And yes, the addition of a garage is an added cost that prevents the units from being as affordable as they are.

But I also agree with the applicant in terms of what they stated about the transition into the neighborhood. And if you’ve done what I’ve done and driven into the neighborhood, immediately adjacent to this property, you are going to see exterior side yard driveways. This is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. I recognize that staff have to bring forward a recommendation for refusal because of the technical aspects of a bylaw that really is dated to a time when we were not dealing with the same affordability and housing crisis.

We weren’t envisioning sites like this being redeveloped by a not-for-profit faith owner and a not-for-profit provider coming forward to look at those kinds of things. So we have to be cognizant of the fact that the regulations in the zoning bylaw, while staff may have to cite them, it is our prerogative as council to recognize that sometimes they don’t always fit. In this case, I concur that they don’t fit. And so I’m moving the recommendation with the change from be refused to be approved for the side yard driveways.

Do I have a seconder for that motion? Councilor Hayler has seconded the motion. So we have a motion moving the second to be developed for discussion and Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I was hoping to hear a little bit more from staff, I guess as to the rationale for not accepting the amendment as requested by the applicant.

And I had pulled up a Google map to try and understand where these side yard driveways would be ‘cause to me it looks like the only place would be on earnest and JALNA. But then when I look back at the planning application, the coroner’s JALNA and JALNA, I guess I’m getting a little confused about where these would go. I’ll go to staff for a little illumination on the Google map question. Sure, through the chairs.

So I know the report it speaks to as an exterior side yard parking. The reality is it’s front yard parking. So we have a lot of policies in the London plan that speak to limited front yard parking creates a lot of impacts within the neighborhood. You’re gonna see probably cars all parked along here as opposed to internals.

So there’s a lot of policies that speak to hiding in the parking from the streetscape and making it more compatible with the neighborhood. So those are kind of the reasons for our refusal. Councilor, Councilor Hopkins? Yeah, just a question through you, Mr.

Chair, about the parking. I know we don’t allow front yard parking, but if we had a garage there, we would allow the front yard parking. I just want clarification. Staff.

Through the chair, that’s correct. The garage is considered your legal parking space, not the lane lane. Councilor. - Thank you for that.

And I’m just trying to process this, ‘cause I know the garage is not there because of the cost and we want 30% of this development to be affordable units. So the other question I had about the parking for the townhouses and the community center, are there any concerns of overlapping, just trying to get the concept of how parking will exist in this development? It will be separated the townhouse parking to the community center parking. Staff, through the chair, the townhouse as proposed is off of that gentleman Boulevard, they’re parking.

So it would be separate as it’s laid out in the proposed plan. Councilor, I see Councilor Palosa, hand up. And so I will go to you, Councilor. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for putting all word 12 applications on the agenda tonight and close together. And welcome to word 12, Councilor Frank, and you find yourself at the corner of Jelena and Jelena. Happy with this development and having attended the open house they had with residents and the church congregation to hear first hands from residents, even though they aren’t here tonight, what their concerns were. Please, this townhome development will keep with the streetscape on the Southdale side for the apartments and with the townhomes in the back, keeping with the current built area of townhomes.

And thank you for DEP to DEP Mayor Lewis for meeting with me beforehand, and moving the, be approved for part B for the parking, realizing that it’s a privilege to have your front door when you leave your front door to walk out into the open and not into a hallway, and definitely a privilege to have a bedroom for your garage or a bedroom for your car to park in. I’m absolutely open to the garage not being required to development feature of this parcel of land. Also, for anyone familiar with this property, it is underutilized and happy to hear that there is community gardens on site, that that is being maintained and retained for people to use, that they’re looking for ways to bring the community in and be street facing, enhanced gardens for a walkway through the property as well as there is space. My only concern I raised with the applicant beforehand was just, could you not go a little bit taller ‘cause there is taller buildings across the street, but they want to really keep with the environmental impacts and what a six-story structure allows them to build for materials.

So I respect that and appreciate Kindred Works looking to do their first build in London, and that with their 30% affordable rate that they are willing to work with staff as they will be connected with them and are willing to work within some city list and suggestions as well. So overall, a development that the community seemed fairly supportive of. I’ll also note that there’s a development already approved by Council directly across the street on Southdale that we’d already approved, that would be a development that I’d reached up to them on my own as the word counselor. I was concerned about construction timelines, colliding and residents having more construction traffic than normal and the other developments on hold right now.

So absolutely no concern with construction traffic and impacts in this area. So I ask for your approval of what the deputy mayor put on the floor that we can build these town homes without graduates. And thank you to staff for the work preparing this file as well. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Councilor. Any other comments? Those are op-ins.

Yeah, I’ve got another question before a comment. And the question is around affordable housing. I know we do not have any policies. And I wonder through you, Mr.

Chair, staff can just give an update that, as we go forward or may not go forward with a development for affordable housing, 30%. How does that go to look like through the process now? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, as moving forward, we have our roadmap to 3,000 units.

That’s really guiding how we work. There’s a significant amount of funding that’s associated with that. And also on top of that funding, we have $20 million within the housing accelerator funding that’s gonna be help us to be able to support that work moving forward. So we’ll have to have some upcoming reports just highlighting how that we’re gonna take that approach.

But for the most part, there’ll be a series of different opportunities to be able to fund affordable housing moving forward. And that will be brought forward in a future council meeting. Councilor. Yeah, I look forward to those reports.

And as we approve zoning applications now, I’m always curious as to where this application will go. But I really wanna thank the applicant. Welcome to London. And for, I think this is an exciting application.

I will be supporting the amendment. I am having challenges. I know we do not allow the parking in front. That is a bit of a concern for me, but put a garage in and to increase the cost of an affordable housing unit does not make sense either.

So in this situation, I will be supporting the amendment. Yeah, there are comments or questions that committee will, oh, I’m sorry, Councilor Pribble. No, sir, the chair to the staff. I actually, Mr.

Mathers, I just want to make sure I understood, right? Do you say 2000 or 3000 units? Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair 3000 units, is that the 3000 unit plan, that’s right. Thank you very much. I’m glad to hear that. I thought I heard 2000.

Thank you. Important distinction. If the committee will allow me, I just want to make a few comments here. I share our Councilor Hopkins thoughts.

We have these things in place that staff look to for very good reasons on protecting the look of neighborhoods. But for me, this is a one-off in driving the affordability with the extra cost to the end user when you put up a garage. I know that that adds to the cost. And also the ward councilor.

I take her opinion very strongly. She knows the area and she knows the impact that the changes that the deputy mayor has made to the staff recommendation, the impact there. And I appreciate, appreciate the fact that he spoke with her prior to this to get a good feel. So, terrific 30% of the 110 units below market rate, which I think is an interesting way to describe affordability ‘cause I’ve always found the affordability to be slightly ambiguous.

This is a little bit more of a clearer indication of what that means. So we have a motion moved and seconded. We’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. We will now be moving to 3.7. This is 610 to 620 Beaver Brook Avenue. Councilor Palosa, this is an interesting street ‘cause there’s actually two Beaver Brook here.

Avenue’s in the area. It’s well, it’s not my ward. It’s just across the street from it. So I’m familiar with the area.

So I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting, Councilor Hopkins, second by Councilor Frank. I’ll call them. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Questions of technical nature for staff this time.

Go to the applicant. The applicant would like to address committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Good afternoon.

My name is Casey Kolchicki. I’m a senior planner with the link preamelimited representing old Oak properties as the applicant on the file before you tonight. I’ll just start by saying thank you to staff for their work on this file. This has been in the pipe for quite some time.

I think we’re coming up to close to 16 months now, but we’ve had a lot of back and forth reviewing urban design comments and modifying the site plan to get the plan that’s before you to a spot that both staff and the applicant could agree on. Through the process, we were also able to take in urban design peer review panel comments as well as written comments submitted by members of the public. So we are in agreement with the staff recommendation for approval here tonight. And we look forward to moving forward to the site plan approval process.

And I am available if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll look to the public now if there’s anyone that would like to speak to this item.

I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak to item 3.7? Thank you. I see no one that would like to address the committee.

Dan, would you like to address the committee on this item, which is regarding Beaverbrook? Yes, thank you. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you.

My name is Eldana Senzikas. And I’m an area resident, but I’m actually here representing 20 area residents who’ve signed this petition. And they are all opposed to this development. And it’s for a couple of main reasons.

When I was collecting these signatures, I met a lot of people who already live in old oak buildings. And I heard the same story over and over about the horrible conditions, the roaches, the mice, the leaks, the mold. And I kept hearing over and over again people saying, we call old oak and they tell us we don’t have enough staff to deal with maintenance. So the question is, shouldn’t they deal with those problems in their existing buildings before they start building new ones?

Because how are they going to maintain the new ones? I get that London needs more housing. I get it, I totally get it. But housing has to be livable.

If it’s not livable, it’s not solving the problem. It’s making more problems. Some members of city council accept financial donations from old oak in all fairness to the people of London. I think those councilors should— Ma’am, I’m going to stop you there.

I don’t want to get into any implications of that matter that has been dealt with by the integrity commissioner. So I’m not going to allow comments like that. All right, thank you. A second major reason why so many people sign this petition is because this development is going to destroy 131 trees.

Many of them mature that grow on the site. Trees are the lungs of a city. We know that and certainly a city that boasts of being the forest city should know and appreciate this. Old oak is a major sponsor of reforest London.

I asked reforest London why they accept donations from a company that’s clearly acting in violation of reforest London’s own mission statement. And I was told, and I quote, “Old oak is operating within city rules.” So once again, it comes all back to you city councilors. This development will result in a significant loss of badly needed green space in this neighborhood. When these two buildings are built, there will be 23 high-rise buildings in an area of six square blocks.

And finally, I just want to express my disappointment shared by so many of my neighbors that old oak has refused to hold a meeting with area residents to explain to us their plans, to give us information, to answer our questions and to listen to our input. We’ve been trying to get a meeting with them for a year and a half. And I guess I shouldn’t be surprised giving how, what lengths they go to to avoid talking to their tenants who have maintenance issues. So before this matter moves forward, I know that we would appreciate having a chance to have a public meeting with old oak.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the public? I’ll ask a clerk to see if there’s anyone else online.

Is there anyone else online that wishes to speak to this matter? Thank you. Okay, seeing no other speakers, then I’ll look for motion to close the Luke participation meeting. Councillor Hopkins, second by Councillor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, I’ll put 3.7 on the floor for committee. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, much appreciate it. I had been chatting a little bit with staff and during the meeting circulated an amendment. I tried to get it a little bit earlier, but my apologies. So that should have made its way into fellow Councillors’ inboxes.

Hearing from the community, as well as reading through some of the comments. One of the areas I noticed that need may be a bit of tweaking and I was hoping to chat a bit about a committee with some of the green space. So I have circulated some amendments happy to, I’m just for procedurally if we need to, essentially they’re tagging on to the staff recommendation and tweaking some of them. So I’m not sure if it’s like, move the staff recommendation and add the amendments or put the amendments on the floor.

So maybe seeking a bit of help with that. We’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. If I can assist with this a little bit, having read what Councillor Frank has circulated, it may be that we want to deal with this by putting the staff recommendation on the floor and then introducing amendments.

And I’m just looking at the three that were circulated. There’s two I can support and one I can’t. So it might be better to deal with these as individual items rather than trying to peel apart a revised recommendation if that was put on the floor. So I think where we’ll go with this Councillor is if you move the staff recommendation, we’ll get it on the floor and then you can amend, make amendments to that motion going forward.

Sure, that sounds logical. Okay, so would you like to move the staff recommendation? I see Deputy Mayor Lewis would like to second it. And now will be a good time to introduce your amendments.

Thank you, yes. Do you want me to go one by one or read them all three out? Looks like we’re gonna have to go one by one Councillor. So why don’t you go ahead with the first one?

Perfect, all right. So the first one I’ll just read aloud and then see if I have a seconder. But the proposed by-law attached to the staff report is Appendix B being a by-law to amendment zoning by-law Z. One, be revised by deleting part two, a the landscape open space minimum 24% if being noted that landscape open space minimum in the R8-4 zone is 30%.

So the clerk is working on getting that up so I have a seconder for Councillor Hopkins. Seconded, I’ll open the floor for discussion or I can go to Councillor Frank to start us off. Please go ahead. Thank you, much appreciated.

Yeah, so I was looking through this application and while I appreciate the density of the area and given the area is already a fairly dense neighborhood, I did notice that the proponent is requesting 24% landscape open space, which our minimum standard is 30% and you can notice if you’re looking at the aerial picture of the application, a significant amount of the application is parking. So 24% landscape, 29% building coverage, that means 47% of this parcel of land would be paved. And I do think that we have minimums for a reason. We need green space.

I do know there’s a park adjacent and there’s also a cemetery across the street for people to walk through. But, and not at all trying to stand in the way of development, Far B, I just think that we do need this green space for residents, for water infiltration, storm water purposes, and trying to meet our climate targets. So I was hoping to revert back to the minimum which we have, which is 30%. And then I have two other amendments, but that was the first one.

Okay, well, while we’re on this one particular amendment, any questions further to Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Chair. So through you, this is the one amendment that I won’t be supporting. Our staff brought forward a recommendation that does recognize the reduced open space on this property.

And for exactly the reasons that Councilor Frank actually indicated, Sugar Creek Park is immediately adjacent to this site. So there is open amenity space in the public ownership right there, likewise there is green space across the road. So I am comfortable with the recommendation that came forward. I don’t see the need in this case.

And this is the trade off that we have with density and infill is that sometimes they won’t always fit the percentages exactly. So this one I won’t be supporting, but I do like the other one that I know is coming forward with regard to the parking and some green consideration to that parking space. So I will be supporting that one, but I’m not going to be supporting this one. I would like to, the clerk brought something to my attention, I’d just like her to inform the committee.

Just some wording that if staff are okay with adding this to the amendment, but it would be pursuant to section 34 sub 17 of the Planning Act as determined by the Municipal Council. No further notice be given in respect to the proposed by-law as the changes related to the landscaped open space. Minimum is minor in nature and will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the notice of public meeting. Sorry, 33.17.

Okay, our staff, good with that. Yes, we are in agreement. Thank you. Thank you.

Other comments or questions from committee? Councillor Hopkins. The reason I’m supporting this amendment, I think we’ve heard loud and clear from the community the importance of open space trees. This is an intense development.

I think it’s really important, even though there are opportunities for people that will be living in this development to take use of other amenities spaces in the area, it’s important that they also have some open space where they live. At least the minimum of 30%. I think it’s fair, the reduction of a bit of parking is, it can happen. I really would like to encourage committee members to support this amendment.

I think if we stand behind our green spaces, our trees, our environment, it gives us better development. Any other comments? I’ll ask the, go to the deputy mayor. Please go ahead.

Thank you chair, through you to our staff. I want to ask, given the staff recommendation is in support of this application at this time, if we were to change this now, how does that affect staff’s ability to represent us? Should the applicant, given we’ve heard the number of months back and forth with changes on this, how would that affect staff’s ability to represent us? Should this go to the Ontario land tribunal on the applicants’ objection to changing the staff recommendation?

I’ll go to staff. Through you Mr. Chairman, I’m not quite sure I understand your question. So are you referring to the proposed amendment for the landscaping?

Okay, Deputy Mayor, please, you could elaborate a bit. Sorry, I’ll try and be a little more tight with my question here. Given the timeframe that’s already elapsed to get to this point, and that the staff have brought forward a recommendation. If council were to change the staff recommendation now, and the applicant appealed to the OLT to stay with the original staff recommendation, how would that impact staff’s ability to represent the city at an appeal process?

Because we’re going, we’re changing your recommendation. So would you still be able to support a council change, given that it’s not consistent with your recommendation? I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thanks for the clarification.

So if we went to the board to represent the city, we would still defend our original 24% that we recommended. Deputy Mayor? So staff would not be in a position to defend the 30% amendment that’s being proposed. Is that correct?

Go to staff. Through the chair, that’s correct. If Deputy Mayor could take the chair, please. I have the chair, and I’ll recognize Councillor Layman.

Thank you, so, yeah, I was moving with the amendment, ‘cause I understand the concerns about density in the area. I’m familiar with the area, and it is dense. To have a bit more green space would help, I think, in that regard, but the concerns of the Deputy Mayor are real. Staff would essentially go to the OLT and say, well, this is what we recommended, you know, 24% and committee boosted to 30%.

And I think that does bring into play the chance of failing at appeal. However, that’s not written in stone, either. You know, it’s a judgment decision, and I’m not a legal expert, so I don’t know how that is. So I see the Councilor, the Councilor, local Councilor Ferrer is going to speak to this, which is good, because I need a little bit more, a little bit more discussion here to help me help me with my own decision.

I’ll turn it, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I will return to the chair to you. I will advise that Councillor Ferrer and Councillor Frank are both on the speaker’s list.

Thank you, before I go there, I saw Mr. Corby had his hand up. I would like to hear from Mr. Corby.

Through the chair, I just want to clarify, so staff position would remain defending the 24%, but legal staff from the city would defend Council’s position. So we’d be in opposition at the board. Council does, or if legal does defend Council’s decisions, I’ll be able to hear it. Right, so legal would defend the Council’s decision.

However, if you were called to testify, you would say we recommended 24% and here’s why. Through the chair, that’s correct, yes. Thank you. All right, I’ll go to Councillor Ferrer.

Thank you, and through you, sorry, Councillor and Frank and I were just discussing if she would go first. So I just wanted to, to the first part of the motion here. There is a section in the staff recommendation with the staff report that does have site plan, the site plan approval authority to be requested to consider reducing the amount of parking spaces on the area. So even though it’s not part of the recommendation, it is a request from staff itself.

And I just wanted to go to the amount of parking per unit. I think it’s 1.24 spaces per unit right now. Does that sound correct? Can you confirm that, staff?

Through you, Mr. Chair, that is correct. Thank you. On average for this type of development or any development, what is the average parking per unit that we usually see if you can answer that?

Is that, is there a number out there, just an average? ‘Cause I do feel that this is a little higher than the norm. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, we don’t actually have any metrics on the average of what parking rates are.

We just have our bylaw, which allows 0.5 per unit. Okay, Councillor. Thank you. I believe there’s about 184 units for this development.

So 1.24 parking spaces, I do see is a little high. So that’s why I would like to think that considering with what I see in the report as well, what staff is requesting at the site plan stage, the ask to increase the green space from 30%, from 24 to 30% would be a reasonable one. So I do, I would like to just put those comments in for the committee to consider. Thank you, Councillor Fray.

Thank you, yes. And I think this is mostly for my learning, ‘cause I’m still figuring out the OLT appeals questions. I’m curious, and I’m not sure which staff to direct it to, whether it’s legal or planning. But given the 30% is in, I assume the London plan, and that has been defended at OLT, then when we have staff make a recommendation that’s counter to our official plan that’s been upheld at the OLT.

Is it then, do you find that the precedent would then lean with the staff that are arguing in favor of upholding our official plan or the staff that are arguing counter to it? Well, that’s kind of a legal question, and I’m not too sure if staff would like to weigh in here. I don’t think so. I don’t believe we have any legal last of clerk, would we have any legal?

Oh, way back there, yes. So I’ll go to some legal expertise on that question. Thanks, and through the chair. It would be difficult to say whether or not it would go either way.

There’s a provision of the planning act that speaks to, and I don’t have the language right in front of me, but looking to council’s decision that doesn’t mean anything necessarily, we would have to look at what the case law says about that. Councilor. Thank you, yes, yeah, I guess it would depend on the judge too, but I’m just curious, given that essentially we are staff are recommending against what our official plan is, so to me that just seemed a bit more murky than originally appears, but thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions we’ve got? We’re just voting right now in the amendment, so we have it moved in second, so I will call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion fails, two to three. I understand now you have a second amendment.

Please go ahead, councilor. Thank you, I have a second and a third, but I feel like we could do these together if possible, and if the clerk has the language up. So these two are through say plan amendments, and they might look familiar, ‘cause I added some similar ones last week to a different application, but I will read them out, so adding XVI additional tree plantings on the property or nearby properties will be required to compensate for loss of trees and exceed the minimum tree planting requirements, and XVI investigate a solar installation along the top of the parking garage and include a minimum 5% EV charging stations in parking. Would committee have any trouble if I bundle these two amendments together?

Okay, so can I have a seconder on those councilor Hopkins, and I will go to councilor Hopkins. Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair, just a quick question on number two, the revised portion four by adding additional tree plantings on the property. A question about the tree preservation plan and that already exists, and how does this amendment change the plan going forward through the site plan?

That was my staff. Just wanna know what we’re doing here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The tree preservation plan will still be reviewed through the site plan process, but this will just be an additional consideration for them to look at during this process for the additional trees. Councilor. Yeah, thank you for that. So it just seems most of the time, even though we have plans for tree preservation, we should be, as a forest city, adding the importance, the amendments to looking at adding more trees as we go forward with applications.

It’s just a bit of a learning curve for me here, but we can do it at this stage, and I’m all for it. So thank you. Other comments or questions on two amendments, Councilor Ferra? Thank you.

I guess I’m gonna start with maybe showing some appreciation, ‘cause I don’t do that as much as I should. I do need to look at the planning department and say thank you for the work that you’ve done, and specifically to the planner. I think that you’ve done a fantastic job bringing my feedback and the community’s feedback to the applicant. It’s a different way of working, but I’m very appreciative of that.

And I’m also appreciative of the applicant. I do see that a lot of movement was made. I do see that the orientation of the building turning 90 degrees and everything else that we added into that brought us much closer where I’d like to go. And these extra motions that Councilor Frank brought as well, I felt like would be closing the gap there.

So I just wanted to start there. The delegate spoke to the 131 trees that are being removed, and this is the only green space in the area. And there are very mature trees, 131. So this is why I’m very appreciative of Councilor Frank’s motion asking to rectify that.

So I do hope that the committee does approve these amendments, these extra two amendments. I would have liked to see the 30% from the 24%. But I guess that’s the past. So I just wanted to say that.

And I do hope that we can get a committee approval here for the additional two amendments, just because the big thing that I’ve heard, especially during the campaign, ‘cause this has been something that I’ve had in front of me for months, right from the beginning, even before the election, was the amount of trees that are being removed. And just the fear that constituents in the community in the area were speaking to. So it’s really about the trees and obviously other issues, but the biggest issue, if you were to tear it, it would be the trees at the top. So I do feel that this is something that we need to be looking into.

And if you also look into the stormwater management and you look, or issues with stormwater management, if you look through the report, you see a lot of reference to low impact development and using these types of techniques to mitigate those type of issues. So I also want to go back to staff and say thank you for that too. I really appreciate that. But I hope that we can get support for Councillor Frank’s last two items on her amendment.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So as I indicated, supportive of these two amendments, wanted to speak briefly to both of them. I think it’s always worth looking, especially when we’re creating a parking structure, parking garage space that we look at, whether components of green build design, whether that’s energy generation, or maybe it’s living walls in some cases, there are a variety of things, but I’m never opposed to having that looked at when this moves through site plan.

When we think about affordability, is it viable? That’s a discussion that our staff and through the site plan approval authority will have with the applicant. I always think that compensation for tree removal is fair. There’s a fair amount of treed space in the relatively immediate area along Riverside and particularly along the rail corridor, a large lot up Proudfoot Lane a little bit further.

So I think that there is opportunities and we have some public space too, so that compensation could include some planting on public land, not opposed to that either. So I think that’s a discussion we can have. As we deal with infill and density, there will be tree removals as a consequence, so we should look to compensate for that in other locations where density and infill won’t fit quite so easily in terms of the existing zoning, hydrological conditions. There’s all number of reasons why some land can’t be developed, and so that’s a good space to look for some compensation there.

So I can support both of these. I recognize that at site plan, it becomes a back and forth discussion over what can fit, but I also think that it’s worth noting and I just wanted to share this. We talk a lot about our climate change actions and I’m a very firm proponent of the fact that the car is not going away, it’s going electric, but I think that’s all the more reason to start future proofing these developments by looking for a minimum number of EV charging stations to be built in from the beginning, because the demand will come from tenants, and it’s often easier to plan for it up front than to retrofit later. And so again, very supportive of having this investigated as part of this development, because I think it does make sense.

If not this year, in five years, in eight years, in 10 years, we’re seeing a lot of senior level of government investment in EV technology and manufacturing in this province and in this region. And so I think that those folks that we’re going to see working at a Volkswagen, for example, and driving a Volkswagen EV vehicle are going to need a place to charge it. And some of those folks will be living in multi-residential units. So let’s start planning for that ahead.

So I do support that amendment from Councilor Frank. I think it’s something that we need to, actually through our rethinking zoning process, consider as a bit of a standard operating procedure to look at in the future. But that’s a discussion for another day. I see staff writing down notes and looking at me like thanks for adding to our workload.

But I just wanted to throw that out there that I think in the future, maybe something that we want to incorporate as a matter of just our regular process. Thank you. We have two amendments that have been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Go ahead, Councilor Oppens. Yeah, sorry, Mr. Chair, I’m just trying to figure out where we are. Is this just on the amendment or on the main motion?

No, this is on the two amendments that were bundled together. We are, that’s been moved and seconded. And if there’s no further need for discussion, I will call that vote. Opposing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Now we’re going to need a motion on the staff recommendation as amended. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins, and this is on the whole enchilada. A whole enchilada here. I just want to thank the public for coming out.

I think it’s important that the public come out, and we hear what you’ve got to say here in these chambers. So I want to thank you for that. I want to thank the applicant. I know, I appreciate when we have these infills, when we look at the stepping down of the height when it comes to the privacy and buffering of the existing neighborhood.

So I really appreciate the work the developer has done there and city staff’s work on this as well. And I really encourage the public and the developer to get together and work together with this development. And we’ll be supporting the motion going forward. The other comments or questions on the main motion as amended.

Committee will permit me. I’m just going to thank the local councilor for our, this is where our words meet. So I know we share a concern there and I appreciate the time spent with the local community there. And thank you for your kind words to staff.

I appreciate that. So we have motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Moving on to 3.8. This is regarding 135 Village Walk Boulevard. I look for motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Hopkins seconded by Councilor Frank.

I’ll call the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Any technical questions from the committee for staff at this time? I’ll go to the applicant.

Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Scott Allen, MHBC Planning, acting on behalf of the applicant.

With me today are representatives of our project team. This time we’d like to express our support for the findings and recommendations of the planning staff report, including the revised zoning bylaw amendment that was part of the agenda package. In particular, we wanted to concur with staff’s conclusions that the proposal conforms with the policy direction of the London Plan, including the site-specific permissions applying to this property. And the site design has regard for the Upper Richmond Village, urban design guidelines, my apologies.

These findings reflect the considerations and conclusions and MHBCs planning justification report and urban design report, which were submitted in support of this application. With approval of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment, the applicant intends to advance site plan approval expeditiously with consideration for the design matters identified in the staff recommendation. Thank you for consideration. Gladly answer any questions committee members may have.

Thank you. Members of the public, I would like to address the committee on this item. Mr. Clerk, if she has anyone online.

Is there anyone online wishing to speak to this matter? Thank you. Members that we have no one online. So looking at the public gallery, I’ll look for a committee for a motion to close the PPM.

Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, call the vote. Closing the vote and the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, I’ll put 3.8 on the floor. Deputy Mayor Lewis, move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. I have a seconder. Councilor Frank, we have a motion moved and seconded. I’ll open for discussion, questions, comments.

People seem pretty pleased. I take it. So seeing there’s no further discussion. Councilor Rama, please go ahead.

Thank you and through you. First, thanks for having me at your committee today. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to this application. I have heard from a few residents in the area, similar concerns that were expressed in the application.

Mainly, I think that the applicant has addressed the concerns that were raised. However, there are still, of course, concerns around some of the density that’s coming into the area. That neighbors just feel having lived in kind of an open space for some time that now, as things are starting to fill in a little bit more, they have expressed some concern. There are some within the staff issues or where it says key issues identified by staff and agencies and included the parking and the drive-throughs.

I’m just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on the drive-through concerns. I wanna go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair.

During the planning process, the applicant applied for just drive-throughs across the board. So there was just a little bit of a concern with regards to having drive-throughs in the by-law across the board. So you’ll notice in the by-law, it recommends just two drive-throughs for the specific uses that they’re providing that need the drive-throughs. Councilor.

Thank you and through you. Those were similar to the concerns that I had, neighbors are just concerned overall with drive-throughs being in the area, not specific to what’s anything in the application. So I appreciate that feedback. Just wondering also if you could comment on park amenities in the area.

Go to staff. Through the chair, there are some existing built parks in the area. There’s the commons that’s directly across the street and then there’s additionally a pathway system that is nearby to access as well, Councilor. Thank you and just to follow up, this is more for, I guess, in relationship to a concern.

I think that neighbors have in the area particular to not just this application, but the development that’s happening in the area, something I have raised with park staff just sharing with my fellow Councillors here, is the concern that there’s very little park amenities in the area. So I know there’s open space. I do know that there is some discussion coming to Council later on in the park’s master plan and whether or not there will be opportunities for more, I will call them child-friendly parks in the neighborhood. It’s just with the addition of so many units, not just in this application, but in others in the area that there is definitely a need for more amenities in the area for residents.

Go to staff. Through you, Mr. Chair, that is definitely something we can talk to our parks planning department about pass on the comments and concerns. Councillor, thank you.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you to the visiting councilor. I appreciate her questions. Got me thinking about tree-lined streets.

I know this is a big development and how is, how are the trees going to be incorporated along the streets and this development? Through the staff. Through you, Mr. Chair.

Through the site plan approval process, I believe I’m just gonna make sure that they’ll be dealing with the tree preservation at that time, and then I’ll include looking at the boulevard trees as well. Councillor. Sorry, I didn’t get that. I did get there is a tree preservation plan, but my question is around the boulevard tree plantings, that is part of the tree preservation plan.

Go to staff. Sorry, just clarification. So the boulevard trees are part of the subdivision process and the boundary trees and the trees on site will be dealt with through site plan through the tree preservation plan. Councillor.

Is that clear? Yeah, I think that had a long day. Maybe just trying to understand the boulevard trees and when and if and how they’re looked at through the site plan process. Go to staff.

Through the chair, I can provide additional clarification on that to fully boulevard trees are planted after end of warranty of the subdivision. Currently it’s showing the subdivisions assumed. I’m not sure if it’s reached that next barrier, which certainly not Barry Whit hurdle, which is a year after assumption. If I’m given more time, I can always reach out back to you later date, Councillor.

Yeah, I appreciate the feedback. I think given the concerns of the lack of a green space amenity space, the opportunities to do as much planting in this development, it is a completely deserted spot, just taking advantage of opportunities for tree planting. I think we’d create a better subdivision, just a few comments. Any other questions or comments?

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to say thank you to staff as well as the applicant. I think this is a good example of mixed use development and something that we talk a lot about, but we don’t actually get the opportunity to see.

And I also really appreciated the pedestrian map. I don’t know if that’s a standard one that we request applicants submit, but being able to see where the pedestrian access ways through such a large parking lot are was really helpful because I know that’s something I worry about and some of the big box stores that I occasionally go to don’t, I don’t think had that plan in place. So it’s nice to see that it is here as well. I also want to applaud the applicant for the amount of underground parking that they’re doing and still maintaining a 1.2 spaces per unit because I know that can be expensive, but I think that shows that they’re considering the surface needs as well.

So I just wanted to say thank you to those things. And I was wondering just for staff, maybe at SPA, I know that given how the renderings look, which I think that they look really great, I’m wondering with the, at the end of the parking base, I know that like after a certain number of parking, you have to install a little landscaped area. And I’ve seen those in some areas where in the city they start out with trees and then maybe after five or 10 years, eventually it just goes down to grass. So I’m just wondering what is our ability, I guess to maintain those trees that end up in those little, I don’t know what you call them, base, landscape base?

Go staff, thank you through the chair. The trees typically don’t survive that well, or don’t thrive in those conditions. Generally the soil depth isn’t conducive to that, so you do see what I call the Charlie Brown Christmas tree after a little bit of time. After the site plan securities are returned, generally you do see property management companies go in and just put the soft land’s keeping in there.

So that’s usually the pattern of how it evolves over time. Certainly there are conditions where they do thrive and there are examples of that. So it’s kind of on a case-by-case basis in that scenario. Councilor?

Thank you, and if I could follow up for that. So I’m just wondering how long I guess site plan conditions stay on a property. So for example, I get not specifically this one, but I’m thinking of a couple of others in my head. I’m wondering if I could let staff know that trees have been removed and replaced with shrubbery.

Is there a certain time period where at a certain point we just stop maintaining and following up? Or is that a definite requirement if they are demonstrated to be in the site plan control by law? All those staff, thank you through the chair. The development agreement is registered on title and it’s in perpetuity.

Generally things like the counselor bringing up are complaint-based, complaint-driven. We don’t often check individual trees or individual sites for things of that detail. So if there are situations that are brought to our attention, we can investigate further. Councilor?

Thank you, and sorry to belabor the point, but then there is no timeline on it. Staff through the chair, that’s correct, their perpetuity. Councilor? Thank you very much.

You may get an email with a couple of addresses. Again, not this location, but a couple others I’ve been in. So I appreciate that. Any other comments or questions?

I’ll just say thank you to the local counselor for your input here. Much appreciate it and bringing your concerns of your constituents. This is a fairly major development, but I think it’s gonna be terrific for the area. We all remember when this area was, you know, unoccupied, but the city has grown out in my time here.

And I think this will be a good example of a good mix that we need in this area. So given the, we have a motion moved in, seconded, I’ll call the vote. Fosing the vote and the motion carries, five to zero. Moving on to 3.9, which is 30 and 100 village, Boulevard, I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting.

Councillor Hopkins and seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Technical questions for staff this time. Seeing none, then I will go to the applicant.

Seems like to address the committee. Please sir, give us your name and you have five minutes. My name is Kay Schulchicki, senior planner with Len Capriam Unlimited, representing Auburn developments on the proposed site plan applications. Thank you to staff, particularly makes undercock and Mike Pease for their work to date on this file.

We’ve been back and forth with them over the last few months with regards to the site plan approval process. We’re excited to be here tonight. We think we’ve got a great development in store for the Upper Richmond Village. Just looking forward to hearing any input from nearby residents as well as the Councillors and move this one step closer to final site plan approval.

Thank you. I’ll open it up to the public and sir, everyone from the public that would like to address the committee. I ask to clerk if there’s anyone online. Anyone online that wishes to speak to this matter?

Thank you. Seeing there are no other speakers, then I’ll look for a motion to close the BPM, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, I’ll call the vote. Councillor Hill here. Yes.

You’re voting yes. Thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Thank you.

We have 3.9, I’ll put that on the floor for committee for our motion or discussion. Dean Mayor Lewis. I will move the staff recommendation. Thank you.

I have a seconder, Councillor Frank. The motion moved and seconded it open for discussion or comments or questions. Councillor Frank. Just want to reiterate, thank you to the staff as well as the applicant for doing so much underground parking as well as 46% landscape open space and 37% landscape open space and making it all work because I think again, this demonstrates that it’s possible to do underground parking, make a good product and also still have over 30% landscape open space.

Any other comments or questions? All right, Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be able to address the committee on this particular application.

So first I wanted to start by saying, thank you to the applicant. As many of you from the file are aware, this started as a 12 story building and has now been reduced to nine stories. There was much feedback from the community on the height of the buildings. I know I heard it as well during the campaign from folks that were concerned based on where this is positioned in the neighborhood and that it’s not as transit oriented as other buildings in the development in this area.

So I’m glad to see that. I just wanted to ask a question of staff, two questions. One, and it’s kind of also connected with the previous application because they’re in the same area and so are supported by the same schools. I noticed on the application that we included St.

Catherine of Sienna as the school for the area. I’m just wondering why we would point to a Catholic elementary school as our school in the area as it’s not open to all students in the area. I’ll go to staff. Thank you through the chair.

The reference was probably to do with the proximity of the closest school to this application site, Councilor. Okay, thank you. So this school is zoned or this area, this entire area is zoned to Old North Public School. So it’s quite a distance away.

And I do think it’s important for us to note what the zoned school is for the area so that one, people that are reading this application are aware that the school is actually quite a distance from the area and that will be something they need to consider. And when people are looking at this application, sometimes that does come up in the discussion as well, both applications point to Plain Tree Park as the closest park. But in order to get to Plain Tree Park, you have to cross Sunningdale Road. Although it was great to see the pedestrian oriented maps and things like that and that are included when we’re doing these types of proposals.

I think it’s really important, again, to show where our nearby amenities are. And then these applications, the nearby amenities are actually a very small undersized for the neighborhood park in the area. The closest district park, of course, would be that Plain Tree Park, but it is quite a distance and you would have to cross Sunningdale. So I’m just wondering if staff might be able to comment again with the amount of units that we are now considering in this area, both this application and the previous application, I do think it’s very important for us to consider what does that mean for recreational and amenity space?

There are a lot of designated park areas, Pebble Creek Park being up there as well, but I have met with park staff and have been told that there are no park plans for any additional amenities in those park spaces. We’ll go have staff. Thank you through the chair. The parks in this area, and I think to maybe preface the site plan plugs into the subdivision itself.

The subdivision process contemplates park land dedication in accordance with the Planning Act. So at this point, in terms of the site plan, the site plan is plugging into that subdivision process that happened in 2008. So in terms of that, the secondary plan also would provide support and guidance for that prior to the subdivision as well. So with that in mind, yeah, the site plan itself plugs in and utilizes the parks in the area.

Again, the reference to the Planning Tree Park and I apologize in having difficulty finding that reference would probably to do with the proximity of the largest district park, which that would be for that area, recognizing that there is a smaller park just across the street, Councillor. Thank you, just to follow up. So the concerns of some of the neighbors were the distance and the proximity of that building to their neighboring backyards and in the area. I’m just wondering, and I did notice in the landscape plan that it was extensive.

Is there plans for tree lines or anything at the back of the property facing towards those backyards closer to Torrey Kynes and Torrey Kynes way? Mr. Peace, certainly. Thank you through the chair.

There’s a couple of things that would help mitigate impact with the residents of the North. Firstly, grade change, I believe that the grade as you go north is slightly higher. So it’d be overlooking the site in some context. There’s also a heavily lined or tree lined corridor through that area that would support a tributary that goes east to west.

So that’s an additional buffer that works to the advantage of this site. There is some planting as well to supplement that. So things like lighting, which normally would not be of concern anyways because it’s downward would be even less impactful on this site. So for sure, there would be some supplemental planting.

And to answer other questions about planting that have come up today as well, there is some planting along the boulevard and there would be some external plantings in accordance with the site plan control by the Councilor. Thank you. Lastly, just to build on Councillor Frank’s point around those landscape features that are put into the roadways and the other pathways. One of the things that I have been dealing with in Ward 7 where we have a lot of these that are now changing over back to the city and just as a comment and follow up to her comment was just that a lot of those are becoming grass because we’re also changing it to grass ‘cause it’s easier to maintain for the city.

So I do think that there are some concerns there that we have to deal with later on and how we in perpetuity can consider those amenities because a lot of neighbors see those as features at the neighborhood, whether it’s those wall markers that say the name of the area, et cetera. Are there any of those planned for these sites where there will be those landscape features with the names and the trees and the grasses and all those things that the city would then have to maintain? Go to miss for peace. Thank you.

I was looking around for a subdivision answer but generally the corner entry signs that indicate the subdivision that you’re going into are maintained by the city crew. Certainly there’s some roundabouts in the ward as well that are maintained on an ongoing basis. It’s hard to say with this site in particular, I don’t know if there is one on 30 Village Walk in particular but if it would be on the property it would be maintained as part of this subdivision agreement. Councilor, thank you.

Any other comments or questions on the item? Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And thank you for the word councilors’ comments as well as committee members.

I do have a question. I know originally the building was to be 12 stories. It’s down at nine and we’re here tonight to get public input from the public on this application. I do have a question around the density.

How has that changed just for my own information? Good stuff. Thank you. And I will apologize, Ms.

Sondercock can be here today. So I’m fielding all the questions in her place. The density was established through the area planning through the subsequent subdivision in 2008. The height and density are reflected in the London plan as a high density overlay with a special additional provision of having 300 units per hectare as a maximum and a minimum of 250 units per hectare.

Both sites have that same provision. In this case, one is at 299 and the other one’s at 298, 98 units per hectare respectively. So they’re within conformity of what the 89OP contemplated and through the area plan and now also for carrying board through the London plan. Councilor.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I wanna thank the applicant for that reduction and glad to know that the density is in conformity as well. So thank you for development. I’ll be supporting it.

Any other comments or questions? We have a motion moved in second. I’ll call the vote. I’ll sing the vote and the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, moving on to 3.10. This is regarding 1407 and 1427 High Park Road. Many members will recall that this was before us prior and it was referred back with some concerns. So here it is before us again.

So I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll call the vote. I’ll sing the vote and the motion carries five to zero.

Any technical questions for staff at this time? Then I will look to the applicant, like to address the committee. Please give us your name and you have five minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Scott Allen, MHBC planning acting on behalf of the applicant. At this time, we’d like to advise the committee that we reviewed the planning staff report and agree with the findings and recommendations.

And since the March 2023 Planning Environment Committee meeting, as discussed by the Chair, we had considerable dialogue with city staff regarding options to refine the design for this mixed use proposal. We’re satisfied with the updated design that it aligns with official plan policies and applicable design guidelines, while also addressing outstanding concerns identified through the planning process. We appreciate the attention city staff have had to this application and look forward to moving ahead with site plan approval. Thank you, we’ll gladly answer questions committee members may have.

Thank you. Anyone from the public that would like to address committee on this matter? I’ll ask the clerk if there’s anyone online. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak to item 3.10?

Thank you. Seeing there are no other comments from the public, I’ll look for a motion to close the PPM. Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I’ll call the vote. Seeing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Okay, I will now put 3.10 on the floor for committee. Councilor Frank. Thank you, I just had a question for staff ‘cause I remember seeing this I think a couple of months ago. And I just wanted to confirm the pedestrian issues had been resolved, I assume, so ‘cause you brought to us with the recommendation that you’re making, but I just wanna confirm as well as the height regarding the commercial ones.

I’ll go to staff. Through the Chair, yeah, we’ve resolved the pedestrian issues with the applicant. They’ve provided a walkway that’s visible and clear through the site. And so we have less concerns with that now.

Councilor. Thank you and just double checking. I think this one also had issues with the heights of the commercial building. So I just wanted to triple check that as well.

I’ll go ahead, staff to comment, Mr. Kirby. Through the Chair, based on our recommendation and by-law, the proposed commercial uses will meet the intent of the official plan. So they will be required to be the required height of eight meters at this point.

Councilor. Thank you, then I’m happy to move the staff recommendation. Okay, now I get a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. We have motion moved and seconded.

Any questions, comments from the committee or visiting Councillors? Councilor Robin, you’re getting a busy workout tonight. (laughs) Please go ahead. Thank you and through you, yep.

Busiest word, I tell you, with these development applications, which is great to see, but we also have some questions associated with them. So I’m really glad to see this back in front of us. I think it’s great to see that mixed use, excuse me, in this area. So very happy to see this in front of us again today.

I did have some questions. One, I’m going back to the schools and I’m gonna harp on this because again, Northwest area, all of our schools are at capacity. This school on this list points to Clara Bretton, which is as of right now, not the school zone for this area. It’s actually Wilford jury, which is at, I think, over 140% capacity right now.

Just wondering if you’ve heard from Thames Valley District School Board of a change to the boundary. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, the school board was circulated on the application. We did not receive any comments.

I’m sure. Okay, thank you. So yeah, if it’s possible for us to keep those up to date with the current school that it’s boundary to, because it is really important again, we hear from community members about whether or not the school in the area is full or can be accepting students. Right now, we have a number of applications on Hyde Park that all point to the same school, which is already over capacity.

So I just wanna make sure that we’re doing our due diligence because we also have a role to advocate for more school spaces. I was happy to see in the application that we also included more trees, requirements for trees that are also aligning with the streetscape. I think that that will be nice to have as a feature. Again, we’re close to Canterbury Park, but it is going across Hyde Park to the closest park.

So again, we have a new residential build in this area that does not have a lot of close parks and proximity. Canterbury is an existing park across Hyde Park, but on the other side, all of our parks, Maple Grove being the closest is quite a busy park. And it again speaks to the need for more park space in the Northwest as we continue to build out. Thank you.

Thank you, any other comments or questions before I call the vote? Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanna thank staff and the applicant. I know this has been in front of Peck a number of times and really glad to see it coming about. And again, a development that really takes into account of producing the parking, the open space, the landscaping that’s needed in this area too. So just really pleased that we’re finally here approving your recommendation.

Thank you. Any other comments? Many will permit me. I just wanna echo Councillor Hopkins comments there.

It was debated at committee with staff input and was referred back. So my thanks to the applicant and my thanks to staff for finding a way. ‘Cause at the end of the day, I think it’s a better development for all in the area. Or I think at the end of the day, for hoping for the applicant as well, or they wouldn’t have agreed to the changes.

So good to see everyone working to get stuff built, but in the proper way. So we’ve have a motion moved and seconded call the vote. Seeing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Just a bit of housekeeping folks.

Going back to 3.6, there was a request from the clerk for an additional amendment that be added, which we had failed to actually follow through on. So I’m looking to committee to address that right now. So if we go back to 3.6, I will need someone to make an amendment. And I’m gonna have the clerk just read it out one more time.

And the staff has signed off and they’re happy with this. Please clerk, if you could read that out for us. Just read respect to 1901, John the Boulevard application and the side parking that pursuant to section 3417 of the planning act as determined by the municipal council, no further notice be given in respect to the proposed bylaw as the changes related to the calculation of parking requirements is minor in nature. It will not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the notice of planning.

Are you, is staff okay with the with the change? So if I could have a mover of that amendment, Councillor Frank, I have someone second to please. Deputy Mayor Lewis, any conversation, I’ll call to that vote. Fosing the vote and the motion carries five to zero.

Okay, before we move on to items for direction, sorry. Now we need the motion to be approved as amended. If I could have a mover of that. Councillor Frank, thank you.

Councillor Hopkins second, I’ll call that vote. Fosing the vote and the motion carries five to zero. Now we’re moving on to items for direction. It’s court after six, I’m wondering if committee would like a 10 minute refreshment break, I’m a motion for recess.

Councillor Frank seconded by Councillor Hopkins. All in favor, hand vote. Motion carries. Thanks folks, we’ll be back at six 12.

So we’ll be back at six 22. Okay, I’d like to call a meeting back to order. We are at item 4.1, rethink zoning. I’d like to go to staff right now for a brief intro into where we’re at.

Through the chair, I’ll just give you a little bit of a background on where we’re at right now. So we’ve had a series of reports and updates on rethink zoning and we’ve done a substantial amount of engagement both with the general public but also with our industry partners. And as you’re all aware, we’ve recently brought forward and had a very large announcement related to our housing accelerator and it talks a lot about zoning as well. So we thought we’d come back with an update just to lay out where we’re at and what our next steps will be.

So this report just highlights that we’re looking at an innovative approach similar to a lot of the things that we’re trying to do lately. And instead of just focusing entirely on trying to bring back one document to rule them all for rethink, actually looking at a phased approach where we move first implementation and really very much focus on those housing related items. So of course there’s a lot of very important place types within our zoning by-law including the institutional industrial place types but we wanna place the focus right now on those housing related place types. So we’ll be moving forward with a phased approach rather than and looking at making changes to the Z1 zoning by-law.

We’ll be focusing on some of those things that we think are most likely to be able to increase them out of housing in a short amount of time. So the additional residential units, looking at gentle intensification, looking at those key intensification areas along the rapid transit corridors, also looking at if we can make some changes to the regulations around minor variances and move those forward rather than the initial approach that we contemplated. So what’s really nice about this approach as well is that it does very much focus on making those very strategic moves and also may even include some official plan changes to be able to accommodate the density and the growth that we’re looking for. So this really is a report just highlighting that we’re gonna be looking at fast tracking housing and ensuring that we still have a very comprehensive by-law at the end of the day but looking at establishing that in phases.

So happy to take any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. I’m gonna ask committee to just hold on their questions right now ‘cause we have two requests for delegations from Mr.

Johnson and Mr. Wallace. So what I’d like to do right now is get a motion from committee to allow the delegations to speak to us. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank, and I’ll call that.

Building the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, we will start with you. Please sir, you may urge the mic up there and go ahead and you have five minutes.

Thank you, and thank you, Councillor Frank, for delivering the map to Councillor so that they can have somebody do what I’m gonna be talking about tonight. This map, courtesy of the Dalhousie random EQ study completed about a year ago, shows emission zones for London. Each color on the map represents levels of two emissions, nitrous dioxide in particular matter, both of which significantly contribute to global warming. The amount of emissions vary, the lowest level is shown in dark green on your map, higher in lighter green, yellow, higher still, and the highest in what appears on this copy is kind of a sandy orangey color.

All growing vegetation can process and reduce these emissions, including the vegetation growing in London, Ontario. The map then shows variation in the reduction of emissions by vegetation in different areas of the city. Looking at the southwest corner of the map, there’s a large yellow area enclosed by green on three sides, a section of fairly recent urban development in the city. What characterizes this type of area is a high proportion of pavement and infrastructure and little vegetation.

In this southwest area, this transition from green to yellow, lower emissions to higher, reflects this transition from more vegetation to less. The concern about urban sprawl and its role in the climate crisis typically focuses on how it increases cars and traffic as sources of emissions. What this map shows is the other issue. Not about sources of emissions, but about removing them later, in addition to producing emissions, sprawl creates low vegetation landscape that handicapped the only effective means of reducing emissions.

Simply too little vegetation dealing with too much emissions. A kind of a double down on how urban sprawl accelerates global warming. The map itself could help to define areas in which sprawl could be stabilized or contained in London. Sections of the north of the city and in the very southeast corner could be candidates for sprawl stabilization zones.

The program could have a three-pronged effect, controlling internal intensification of sprawl within these areas, preventing widening of the borders and pop up bursts beyond those borders. Overall, this map should also make us think about the who of the two green areas of the map. The funding for ESAs is actually on today’s agenda. In climate action terms, they are clearly worth the money, but the largest part of vegetation in London is in private hands.

Everyone responsible for the care and protection of vegetation on private residences, golf courses, sports fields, even cemeteries, is making a significant contribution to reducing emissions and deserves at least some recognition. The attached proposal that you have for me on zoning just offers further suggestions on how zoning could help protect and improve vegetation in London. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Johnson. Mr. Wallace, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s a pleasure to be back here at PEC. Thank you, Councillors, for hanging in.

It’s gonna be a lot later than it is, so you’ve done a very good job tonight. I’m here in support of the staff recommendation on the rethinking zoning process. Staff have done an excellent job of providing us some guidance on what this phase in approach would look like. It is something innovative, something new that I think the industry was not anticipating.

And we look forward to working with staff on portions of the Z1 that would have changes, whether it’s on intensification, whether it’s growth and densities around the urban growth boundary. And you may not know this, but probably the most minor variances come from our industry. And if there’s often minor variances are repeated over and repeated over and repeated over and repeated over, if there’s opportunities for us to bundle that and make changes to Z1, so we don’t have to go to minor variance over and over again, anything to help the process would be very welcome. We are, staff has reached out to us, as the industry is likely the largest user of the zoning by-law, as you dealt with a bunch of ZBA’s and OPA’s here today, and do every week at PEC.

We’re looking forward to getting the comprehensive zoning by-law in place that will match the land plan that will remove the need for all these ZBA’s that take up time and money to make it happen. We’re fully supportive of the, helping the housing accelerator fund money that has been granted to the city through their excellent application to make sure we can get the housing that’s needed out there. I can’t resist based on the previous speaker. I just wanna remind council and I wanna support staff that there is no such thing as sprawl in London.

It’s all growth that’s planned within urban growth boundary, which was all within the city boundary. If you wanna talk about sprawl, you could talk about the growth that’s happening in Kilworth and elsewhere outside the city boundary. And I think it’s a disservice to staff to say that they’re sprawl when they have what seven, eight applications here tonight all within the urban growth boundary, some of it within the built area boundary that is not sprawl, Mr. Chair, that is planned growth at the end of the pipe or where the pipe already exists.

And so I do wanna support staff in their, what they have done in planning the city, we’re willing to work with them to continue that plan. And this rethink zoning and this approach will help us do that. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

So I’ll open the floor now for comments or questions from committee members, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes. I think based on those two delegations, I did have a question. I’m wondering, I do like the idea of moving forward with what we’ve got.

And I know that we’ve had things come to us that we’re like, oh, this should just be approved. This is wonderful work. So I think that’s great. I am wondering how we are incorporating, I guess some of the environmental concerns, we’ve got a climate emergency action plan.

Those kinds of concerns, how are those gonna make themselves their way into zoning? And at what stage, I guess, will they be considered? Go ahead, staff. Through the chair, since the beginning of the rethinking zoning process, sustainability has been one of the key subjects that we’ve been focusing on.

So following the plan framework, we’ve looked at the use intensity form of development, but then also applied lenses related to affordable housing and sustainable development. So we’re trying to incorporate those as fundamental principles throughout the entire process. And we’ve involved a staff at the city who have specialty in that and are working through, as we discussed, the different zones that are under development, including that lens is key. So looking at how landscaped open space is planned, how dense development is and how it relates to, excuse me, things such as supportive, or transit supportive development.

Those are all fundamental considerations from the very beginning of the project. And we actually have a discussion paper on sustainable growth and then how zoning can impact that which was prepared just about a year ago now. Councilor. Thank you, yes, I appreciate that.

And I hope that staff don’t misconstrue when I do say letting has an urban sprawl problem, that it’s not a remark about any of your abilities and your dedication to your work, just as was referenced. I do think that has an urban sprawl problem, but I don’t think that is the fault of staff. Thank you. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. And through you, you know, as much as I know right now, we kind of have a nine plans to rule residential and commercial and seven to rule industrial and three to rule institutional and the ideal is one plan to rule them all. I think that there’s a great benefit to proceeding with some of these changes bit by bit.

And having sat on the Committee of Adjustment, I’m quite well aware that Mr. Wallace’s industry brings the majority of minor variance applications before that Committee and getting those out of the way so that they’re just a matter of process is great. I think we’ve seen a number of issues, even at this Committee recently, you know, tonight we talked about parking space or laneways that don’t lead to garages in exterior side yards. We talked about very recently removing the five bedroom cap limit on residential outside of near campus neighborhoods.

And even outside of this Committee, you know, I’m really, I want to give a big shout out to Ms. O’Hagan. Well, Ms. McNeely was away this landed on her desk and there was an issue around tiny homes that start their lives as shipping containers and transform into homes.

And as much as when as a shipping container, not a shipping container might not seem like the existential question of our time. That was, I think, three days that it took staff to turn around and come back with a new interpretation so that some alternate dwelling units could proceed in their construction. So I really want to say how much I think that we’re seeing a lot of flexibility and new ways of doing things embraced by staff. And I know it might seem like we, you know, are overturning more staff recommendations like we had tonight with the exterior side yard parking, but that’s not a reflection on their work.

That’s a reflection on the fact that we’ve got a lot of policies that were created in a different time with a different set of pressing priorities. And so I really want to commend all the work that’s gone into this. I know you’re going to come back with more reports for us in the new year on removing the five bedroom cap, potentially in near campus neighborhoods as well. We heard that some things around like peaks on alternate dwelling units and things like that on heights are going to be under review.

So there’s lots of work going on here. And I think that that’s how it has to proceed ‘cause we can stop everything and just say, we’re not going to do anything more until we get the master plan together. By the time we do that, the master plan will be obsolete. Anyway, and we see that with the London plan.

We heard Mr. Fleming on the 50 King Street application reference and as the hand that was steering the ship at the time, referencing the fact that even though the heights are above what was envisioned in the plan, he was very supportive of it because the situation has changed. And so we’re always going to be in this changing situation. And I will say, I agree with Mr.

Wallace in terms of the urban sprawl. And I am particularly concerned about the ex-urban sprawl that we are seeing in the county. And when we look at a map like we received from our first delegation, when it stops at the city limits, it’s not taking in the whole picture. Because if those yellow and orange spots are growing outside the city in the county, where we previously had highly productive agricultural land or wood lots, that is actually worse, in my opinion, than containing those higher zones to inside the urban growth boundary and inside the city limits.

So I always take these for what they are. They’re a snapshot, but they’re not the whole picture. And so there will always be a push and pull back and forth between competing priorities. But I think that this update on the rethinking zoning processes has been really valuable.

And I know there’s a lot of work ahead for staff. And I will continue to add to your plate with some extra things as ideas come up for me. But I appreciate the work that’s gone into this so far. I know it’s a lot.

And I know we keep— it seems like every committee, we ask you to do one more thing and one more thing and one more thing. But I think the other side of that coin is that we’re seeing lots of positive outcomes in the community, and that’s because of the work you’re doing. So I just wanted to take an opportunity to extend my thanks for all that hard work. I know we might not always make you happy with some of the decisions we make, but we’re making them with you.

And we look forward to continuing to do that. So I’m very happy with this update. I look forward to seeing what comes forward next. Thank you.

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And one of the things, both delegations for your input as well and being here with us this evening. I think it’s fair to say that our official plan, the London Land, does support intensification building in and up.

I think that is something that I know on council. It’s important that we continue that conversation and support. Given the rethink process started back in 2018, sort of we’re into five, six years now, and we’re looking at introducing and bringing forward some zoning amendments in the first quarter of 2024. How confident are we that we can implement them as soon as possible?

And what will that process look like? Maybe that’s the first question and going forward. I’ll go staff. Through the chair, that’s a good question.

And really, I think it’s to the whole reason for the change in the approach that’s described in the report today. With the housing accelerator and just the need to create more housing supply, we identified that some of these processes that may take two or three years to complete aren’t going to bring the results we need quickly enough, so that’s why we’re going ahead with this change. We are confident that we can bring amendments to Z1 that are in line with the objectives of rethink zoning. But because it takes advantage of the framework and the existing definitions and other provisions of Z1, we’re able to just bring those forward as relatively straightforward zoning by-law amendments, which will then be carried forward.

So we’re quite confident that we can bring those that they’ll be in force and that the outcome will be more land zone to permit housing in the shorter term, Councillor. Yes, through the chair, that is so good to hear that and really looking forward to these amendments coming forward and everyone working together to meet the requirements that we have established ourselves for housing and going forward. I’m really looking forward to which they come a little bit faster, but I’ll wait. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? The committee will allow me a couple questions. Can you explain to me the relationship between rethink zoning and the London Plan?

So the London Plan is the official plan for the city. So that was approved under section 17 of the Act, the Planning Act, I should say. And what that acts as is that every, or that section says is that every municipality shall have an official plan to set goals and directions for basically all physical elements of the city, how it grows and the effects of that growth on the economy, the community, natural environment, all those factors, but it’s a policy document. So it sets that direction at a policy level.

Zoning By-law is an implementation tool. So it works with the official plan. It takes that direction and applies it on the ground as applicable law, so it tells you what kind of legally you’re allowed to do on the property today. And it’s because it’s a legal document, it’s very black and white and very direct.

So that’s the relationship. The policy guidance and direction happens at the official plan. The Zoning By-law is a tool that we use to implement that direction. So when rethink zoning is passed by council, then applications coming forward will have to adhere to the by-law set out by rethink zoning, is that correct?

That’s right, the outcome of rethink zoning will be a completely new zoning by-law. So we would repeal Z1 in its entirety and we would have a brand new zoning by-law that would establish all the regulations for growth and development. Thank you. We heard about urban growth, urban sprawl, et cetera.

Does rethink zoning? Is this the place where we start talking about that or is that I know that’s coming to us at some point and know if that was part of this process or not? Through the chair, there is a process and that’s the land needs work that we’re doing right now. So that will be something where we’re looking at any kind of a boundary change and that is supported by a large amount of economic study work as well that’s already been completed.

So this is not that place where we’re talking about any kind of expansion to the urban growth boundary. So is that part of the rethink zoning or is that a separate issue? Through the chair, it’s a separate process. Okay, so I’ll withhold my comments on urban growth and urban sprawl has been touched on by a few tonight but I’ll withhold on that.

My comments are this, building is changing rapidly. Our London plan is thank goodness the people who worked hard on that did as good as they did for seeing the future but already we’re out racing that. So this is very timely this process and it goes to I think what we’re trying to do with staff and then the building community and community and council is to get shovels in the ground faster but without dismissing the oversight that’s required to build a good city. I wanna make that very clear as we’re not rushing to build here we’re just looking for ways to be more efficient at it.

There are new things to think about now that need to be included. There’s things that we don’t have to think about as much as maybe we had to 20, 30 years ago. I wanna thank staff and the building community and the community for working together collaboratively in developing what I consider a very important document and just hearing a few minutes ago this is a fairly substantial document that’s going to derive development for many years to come. I think that’s it for my comments.

Yeah and the flexibility I guess just wanted to touch on flexibility that it’s included in this document because again things change rapidly and we gotta be careful we don’t box ourselves in a corner for whatever’s around the corner in four or five years from now. So thank you on behalf of the committee for the work that you’re doing here. I look for a committee now of motion to receive the staff report. Councillor Hoppen seconded by Councillor Frank and I’ll call that vote.

Quilting the vote motion carries five to zero. Thank you. We do have the 11th report of the community advisory committee on planning there is a request in there for approval by the committee to spend some money. So I’ll look for a motion to receive it but also to allow them to spend the money.

The clerk has the language available if you want to look, refresh your screens. Councillor Frank. I’m happy to move that. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins seconds.

No further discussion. Councillor Frank. I just wanna say I appreciate the comments that they included an item 3.2 on their agenda. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you chair. So consistent with the comments I just made on the earlier item. The comments that we’re receiving from the advisory committee here, citing that the development appears to be an example of urban sprawl.

Again, I disagree. And so I’m gonna ask for these to be called separately because I’m not gonna be supporting commentary that calls urban sprawl with inside the urban growth boundary sprawl when it in fact is with inside the growth boundary. So I’ll look for the clerk to devise a way where we can separate that out. Okay, folks, a few refresher screen.

We’ll be voting on part A initially. Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins have moved that law. I need discussion on that before I call that part A vote. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. Would it be received? Go to the clerk. Do we have language too?

So part A contains concerns about urban sprawl that the deputy mayor raised. Moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any further conversation regarding that? If the vice chair would take the chair, I’d like to speak to that.

I will take the chair and I will recognize Councillor Layman. Thank you. So I didn’t want to speak about urban sprawl in the last conversation, but being it’s raised now, I will. I think the deputy mayor, Mr.

Wallace has raised good points. We hear about urban sprawl as if somehow there’s walls around London that were not impacted by Comoka, Kilworth, Hilderton, Delaware and other areas outside of us. I know for example, in my ward, which ends at the river, then Councillor Hopkins’ ward ends at the city limits, there is extensive development just on the other side. And the implications for London are this.

These populations are going to be using our infrastructure and they’re not going to be paying any property tax. And I’ll give you a classic example is the bridge, the Oxford Street Extension Bridge is being looked at right now for widening to handle the extra traffic at a cost of about 20 million plus dollars. That’s on London’s dime that we are supporting infrastructure used by the surrounding areas without control of building. So we have to remember that when we talk about our urban growth boundaries and as far as those conversations come forward, because we might find ourselves surrounded by communities that not contributing to the infrastructure that they’re using on a day-to-day basis.

I think it was important for, in this context, for me to outline that because I will not be, I will not be supporting receiving this particular thing. I’ll support where the deputy mayor is going on for those reasons. It’s just a context, urban sprawl. It’s so easy to hear those words, urban sprawl without really understanding the implications of where the city’s going or where we need to go and the surrounding area.

So I just want to say that. Thank you, Councillor Layman. I will say Thorndale and Dorchester before I return the chair to you on the east side. And I will note that Councillor Frank is next on the speaker’s list.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I as well did not want to go too much into it, but I guess it is a good day to it, considering that the province did just recently decide to overturn all of their forced expansions for other cities with the urban growth boundary. So why not?

But a better time could not be today. I am wondering through the chair to staff if this the 1944 Bradley Ave, if that’s inside or outside the urban growth boundary. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, 1944 Bradley Avenue, the main portion of the subdivision is within the urban growth boundary.

Part of the subdivision and zoning application does show a service road, only outside of the boundary. And one of our comments back to the applicant will be all the infrastructure and services for the subdivision needs to be contained within the urban growth boundary. Councillor. Perfect, thank you.

I just want to confirm. So at this point, I’m not ready to reject information that’s being provided to us from our advisory committees. I think they obviously have their own discussions, which I assume none of us went to that committee, but perhaps I’m wrong. And they must have deliberated and made a decision amongst themselves that they thought this was an example of urban sprawl.

And therefore, I’m happy to accept their advice and their information as was stated. I also think that when we talk about urban sprawl, we only can control, we can control, and unfortunately, or fortunately, we are not in charge of making land use decisions for rural and adjacent municipalities. I do think, again, we have to do our due diligence to our residents to make sure that we’re not continuing to sprawl in a financially unfeasible manner as we know that low density homes on the edges of our city do not pay the same amount proportionally in taxes as our urban core users do. And therefore, it is not financially sustainable as a city.

And we’ve seen actually cities in North America go bankrupt because they have not properly planned. And I’m not saying that London would, ‘cause we have a AAA credit rating, and we do an excellent job of financial planning. But I do not think that this method of development, which is so prevalent in North America and has been for the last 100 years, is the key to success, especially when we are both in a housing crisis and a climate crisis. So I’m excited for us to continue hashing this out, given we’re gonna be getting the land needs assessment information in the next little while.

And again, given the provincial decision today, so looking forward to many more spicy debates with you guys. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I wasn’t gonna weigh in, but I am gonna weigh in, and I’m not gonna weigh in on sprawl either.

I’m gonna weigh in on the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report that we are receiving. Good catch, by the way, not approving. We are receiving. I do read these reports.

I am respectful of their opinions. I was not there at that meeting and heard that discussion. And I am more than, but I look to the advisory groups for their input and their information. That’s all this report is to me.

And I am very thankful and glad that this committee meets and gives that consideration and has an extra set of eyes in the process as we all want to build and develop. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions before I call the vote?

Seeing none, call the vote. Fosing the vote in the motion fails, two to three. Thank you. I’ll look for just, okay, we will put part B and C on the floor now.

We moved and seconded any comments or questions before I call the vote. Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Fosing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We’ll move now on to number five, deferred matters, additional business. We have the staff report, look for a motion to receive that. And then discussion, Councillor Hopkins. I have a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Any comments or questions? Thank you, thank you to staff. This was requested by this committee, so I appreciate seeing you on our agenda. We have motion moved and seconded, I’ll call the vote.

Fosing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Now we are moving back to consent items 2.2. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Chair. So through you, I did ask for these to be pulled. I would ask Committee’s indulgence, if we could deal with 2.3, Conservation Authority cost apportioning agreements first. That may directly influence whether or not I even have questions on 2.2, but as the two are somewhat related to the financing approvals that we make with Conservation Authorities, if we could deal with 2.3 first, that may alleviate any further lines of questioning for me on 2.2.

And may impact my vote on 2.2 as well. Hey, I’ve been informed by the clerk, clerk that we’ll need a motion for a change of order. So would you move that, can I have a seconder? Please, Councillor Hopkins, I’ll call the vote.

Be open for voting now. Fosing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you, so we will be dealing with 2.3 Conservation Authority cost apportioning agreements. And I had asked staff for just a brief kind of overview of what this is about.

Please go ahead. Thank you. And through the chair, this report of cost apportioning agreements with the Conservation Authorities relates to a provincial regulation to do these agreements for particular categories. So three categories were defined under an Oreg in 2022.

And one of the category one is mandatory services. Category two is non-mandatory. Category three are kind of services delivered throughout the watershed. So when it comes down to this cost apportioning agreement, though, the only opportunity to prepare agreements relates to category two and three.

So these agreements in particular for upper tems with the city of London relate to services that we feel that they give a very good level of service to us, beaver management protocol is one, the ESA management is another and the watershed monitoring. These are unique services that they do a very good job of providing. Similarly with the Kettle Creek Conservation, we just decided to initiate a program to work with rural landowners on phosphorus mitigation. So essentially these are very value added programs that the municipality is opting into through our own memo of understanding with them.

The category three programs are ones that the CA’s themselves have identified and they want to just share the cost across the watershed. So something like planting trees, stewardship in schools, basically things that we would all support and enjoy kind of throughout the watershed. So what this agreement does not relate to are category one programs, which are the mandatory section 28 permit reviews, the planning development approvals process, anything to do with timelines that is not reflected in these agreements. It’s very specific to services that we’re opting into and that stuff and all of, we feel Londoners receive a lot of value from.

There is a note in here in section 2.3 or a paragraph about service level agreements. We have been working with the UTRCA about development approvals timelines and trying to establish service levels that will meet our own so that we can have more timely housing approvals and planning approvals. So that is forthcoming under separate activity essentially because we can’t do that under the certain provincial regulations as they sit today, but through working with the upper Thames and through drafting our own memo of understanding as a release of planning approvals, that is forthcoming but it could not be included in these agreements that were mandated by the province. Scott, anything to add?

Through the chair, just to reiterate, most of the upper Thames related applications and reviews that are done as part of the planning environment committee are related to this category one mandatory services. I can tell you that some of our most heard issues and concerns that are housing supply reference group and our customer service and process improvement group are related to the timeframes and abilities for the specifically upper Thames Conservation Authority to be able to respond to the questions and concerns from the development groups and even from our own staff as well. So that’s something that’s very much top of our mind that we want to try to work with them on improving. However, for the purposes of this report, there’s not a lot that we can do in this report ‘cause it’s our hands are tied as far as what we can do is with those category one mandatory services.

So we very much intend to be able to start making that memorandum of understanding or some type of a service agreement with upper Thames. We had to have this step done first because this is what was mandated by the province. But now that this is complete, now we can move into trying to get a better handle on the timeframes and the concerns that the development community has shared with us related to upper Thames approvals. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

So I’m gonna start by thanking staff for zeroing in right off the top on what my concern is. We’re talking about an appropriation of funding for category two and category three services. And quite frankly right now, I would rank the upper Thames Conservation Authority with a failing grade in the category ones. And I’ve got a number of files in my inbox under planning applications that reflect that.

Long past the time comments should have been received back. And in fact, I met with some upper Thames staff in September and had a commitment that comments would be received the following week and last Friday, I had to say we’re now a month past that meeting and we still don’t have comments. So I’m concerned that we’re allowing what I would call mandate creep with upper Thames by entering into appropriation agreements under category three services. When category one services aren’t being met in what I would consider a satisfactory timeframe and level of response.

So I recognize everybody says and correctly that there are staffing challenges out there. But I’m concerned that when we’re spreading beyond the mandatory service provisions and into optional service provisions that we are funding when we’re not getting the mandatory ones at a standard that’s acceptable in my view, that we’re actually continuing to enable focusing, staff focus to be spread across a number of things instead of on their core mandate. So while there may be, and I don’t disagree that there’s things like phosphorus mitigation, very valuable, it has a huge impact on our water quality. And so I don’t disagree with that.

I will confess I know nothing about the beaver management but I will certainly take your word that there’s value in that. But when I hear things like tree planting and we have a great organization in reforest London here in the city that does that, I’m not sure why we’re funding upper tems to do that kind of thing as well. Community outreach and education, again, I’m not sure why we are funding that when we’re not getting responses to planning applications on time. And that is where my concern with this agreement is.

So I’m, and I appreciate in the report section 2.3, references including an additional $200,000 for the upper tems to conduct a service level review, but I’m concerned that that’s $200,000 out of the London taxpayers base, that is being spread across the work that they do in all planning application reviews, not just ours, but the counties as well. And so I’m wondering through you chair to our staff with regard to these funding agreements to what extent, and I recognize that I’m asking a question that’s related to upper tems staffing. And so you may not have the answer and I completely understand that. But to what extent does staff time get taken away from category ones to deal with category two and category three services from upper tems?

Well, good stuff. - Absolutely, through the chair. So I can speak to that just from my own personal experience, I’ve been working with them on a number of different levels and my previous role in the role today. So there’s very minimal interactions between those staff and groups.

One of the large benefits that we get to out of the work that they do in our ESAs and even the Beaver management, ‘cause that’s started in the past when I was around and working on that as well, is that they have staff that every day their focus is working in a natural environment. So they’re very much aware of all of the related regulations. They know the health and safety aspects and they’re very much focused and the value of, for the cost of their work is very reasonable what they provide to us. So those folks that are doing that work do not work directly with the folks that are doing the permitting and the agreements.

The only time that the permitting folks would be getting involved in their work would be if you did need a permit and that’s not often the case. So they are very much a separate entity within Upper Thames that’s providing these services. So I don’t necessarily have any concern that if we’re providing funding to this group doing operational tasks, that it’s going to be have any impact on what’s happening in the other areas of Upper Thames. Deputy Mayor.

So I appreciate that. I think I want to take a little deeper and again, I understand if you don’t have the answer to this. I can certainly understand how there wouldn’t be a tremendous amount of overlap with their folks with planning expertise who are reviewing our planning applications. But when we talk about things like ESA management, Beaver management, water course monitoring, how much overlap is there?

‘Cause I’ve seen this with applications where the UT Upper Thames Conservation Authority staff ecologists change on files regularly. So how much overlap would there be with their ecology staff and some of this, like ESA management and water course monitoring in terms of their ability to provide comment in a timely manner on planning applications, both staff. Through the chair, Emily Williamson ecologist. The, in terms of ecology turnover on staff files, currently the Conservation Authority’s Act has changed.

And the scope of regulatory approvals is limited to the hazard feature. It doesn’t extend into natural heritage assessment. So with respect to the ESA management contract, we don’t have ecologists that are actively working in the ESAs. They’re not actively a part of our planning processes.

If and as necessary, we are able to leverage our core ESA staff to ask a question here or there, but it is not the case that any of their reg staff are actively working on the ESA management contract at any time. Deputy Mayor. Okay, so that’s helpful. That’s very helpful.

Thank you for that. And so the last bit of questioning I have on this and frankly, that answers my questions for 2.2. So thank you. Is with regard to the comments around things like the community outreach and education, the tree planting, and have we actually analyzed where we have redundancies and overlaps with other organizations that are functioning within the city of London, such as the one that I referenced, re-forest London.

But we’ve also got the London Environmental Network, folks who might even have somebody at this horseshoe who’s familiar with their work, who do some excellent work with community outreach and education and programs within the city. So through you, Chair, to staff, have we assessed where there’s overlap in those areas? Because I’m concerned about the fact that we have London folks, like London Environmental Network, who do that kind of work with regard to community outreach and education and maybe it’s not something that we need an MOU with upper tems for any longer. I’ll go to staff.

Through your worship, we don’t have that information at this time, but we can have it available for Council. Deputy Mayor. That would be helpful. So that answers all my questions on this.

And I had some concerns and I wasn’t sure whether I was gonna be able to support this or not. I think I can for the moment based on what I’ve heard. I’m especially thankful for the response on the ecologist that was a big, big question mark for me. So I do appreciate having that.

Again, I also apologize to staff to keeping you here. Long past the time, I’m sure you thought you were gonna be released tonight to answer those, but I wasn’t sure whether I was going to be able to support this report based on your answers. So now I feel more comfortable with that, particularly if we’re gonna get some more information back before Council in terms of some of the potential areas of overlap. Council Frank.

Thank you, yes. And I am very glad to hear that the Deputy Mayor is going to be supporting these two and I’m gonna do my best not to talk them out of it. But I did wanna highlight having previously worked for the London Environmental Network and the N-reforce London and having currently sat in the upper Thames, I can guarantee there is a severe underlap of environmental programs in the city. Well, there are some groups that, you know, plant trees and that many groups might plant trees.

It is not nearly enough to combat the ecological devastation and climate change issues that we’re having. So even though upper Thames, lower Thames, reforce London, lots of rotary groups do tree planting. We need so many more groups doing it if we’re even gonna come close to trying to meet our tree planting strategy targets. So just from personal experience, having worked at both those locations and being on the sport, I do actually see significant value for money in the category two and three services that are provided because I don’t see anyone else currently providing them.

And again, they are good value for money knowing what other funding mechanisms, the conservation authorities are able to leverage. And I think that actually may be also an interesting report is getting a leverage evaluation because for every dollar we put in, many more come back in federal and provincial and other foundation grants. So I just wanna say that I do know that the upper Thames is doing good work in all the categories and I do know that they are trying to improve their category one turnaround times. So I appreciate both the staff who have put forward the recommendations as well as the staff from upper Thames who have joined us.

So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I won’t repeat what Councillor Frank has said and I really appreciate the deputy mayor’s inquiries. I think when we go forward and approve these agreements, we need to ask the question.

So I appreciate you asking the questions and happy that you are sort of seeing the reasons why we’re here. Being on the upper Thames Conservation Authority Board for a number of years, I tell you we’ve gone through a lot of changes and everything that you have once known about CAs has completely changed. And even as we address, review, do the inventory per Thames. Remember, there’s a number of municipalities.

It’s that watershed that we look at, not just specific to London, but there are many, many changes going on. And as much as I hear the concerns around category one, that’s mandatory, that’s gonna happen. Two and three, we’re going through this process right now. And I think, I appreciate staff’s comments.

Thank you. And working with our staff members, they’re up in the gallery as well at the upper Thames Conservation Authority Board. To bring forward and approving and working to achieve these 47,000 units, I think that we all are mandated and we need to do. And that collaboration and working together is really important.

So thank you to the city. Thanks to the staff at upper Thames Conservation Board. I really do think it’s a process. We’re gonna go through a bunch of process when we will have many further conversations, but hoping that this committee will support these items going forward.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Just a quick comment from me.

Thank you staff for the explanation of these things that upper Thames does for the city that any of us don’t realize until we reach a decision point like this. And Councillor Hopkins, thank you. I was worried that you might not take offense, but bristle bit it that the deputy mayor’s comments. And I think it’s wholly constructed that you received it as we all do whenever presented with an opportunity to change processes, a thorough review and defense of what we’re doing.

And I think that’s what happened tonight. So Kudos to you for taking in the right spirit. I think that’s it for questions and comments. We have a motion on the floor.

I’ll call the vote. Oh, I’m sorry. We need a mover and a seconder. Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins.

Now we’ve got a motion. I’ll open the floor. I’ll open the vote. Closing the vote.

Motion carries five to zero. We’ll now move to 2.2. I’ll put that on the floor. Mayor Lewis.

I’m prepared to move the staff recommendation. I think you can have a seconder. Councillor Frank, any discussion, questions? Then I’ll call the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Thank you. That was a long agenda. Appreciate staff for sticking in there with us.

And thank you committee members and clerk for doing the hard work and keeping me on my toes. Look for a motion to adjourn. Seconded in just a hand vote. Motion carries.

Thank you.